Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Companies (Political Donations)

Mr. Sean Hughes: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on his policy towards shareholders' controls over company donations to political parties.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister of Trade and Industry (Mr. Tony Newton): The law requires a note of donations to political parties to be shown in the directors' report for a company and for the report to be circulated to all members of the company before the annual general meeting. Shareholders may then comment on the donations and put down resolutions on them in the same way as they can for other aspects of the management of the company's funds. The requirement to report political donations in this way was introduced by the then Labour Administration in the Companies Act 1967.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister not see even the tiniest inconsistency in the fact that whereas this Government have legislated for trade unions to ballot on the question of political donations, even though trade unionists have the option of opting out, when it comes to political donations from companies they have not legislated because shareholders have the option of opting out? Is not that inconsistency more to do with the fact that most of the shareholders' money goes to the Conservative party?

Mr. Newton: It has rather more to do with the fact that the hon. Gentleman's analogy does not stand up. It is much easier for shareholders to change the placing of their investments than for trade union members to change their union.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend do nothing to discourage donations from the British School of Motoring Ltd. to the Social Democrats so that the saner half of the alliance may continue to survive?

Mr. Newton: I am not sure that I would wish to intervene in other people's sorrows in quite the way that my hon. Friend suggests.

Mr. Ron Brown: Is it not unethical for Scottish and Newcastle Breweries, for example, to hand over large sums of shareholders' money to the Tory party, especially at a time when the company expects the people of Scotland,

who are mainly Labour supporters, to back it in its struggle against Elders? Is that not an important issue of principle on which the Government should make their position known?

Mr. Newton: I described the position in my original answer. It is open to shareholders to raise such matters along the lines that I described.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is perfectly simple for shareholders who object to seeing their companies paying political donations to sell their shares, whereas trade unionists caught in a closed shop would lose their jobs if they acted in the same way?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend puts with his characteristic vigour the point that I made somewhat more delicately a few moments ago.

Mr. Gould: Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster give a clear assurance that the Government will not try to overturn a clear decision on the subject in another place? Will he accept that any attempt to do so would give the lie to the Government's protestations about shareholder democracy and reveal it to be no more than a cynical sham being manipulated by the Tory party for crude party advantage?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman mentions a point which has no doubt been in the minds of many—the fact that these matters have been the subject of consideration in another place. That consideration is not complete and I certainly would not wish to trespass on their Lordships' discussions.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Conservative party is the only party which truly supports free enterprise, that it is entirely in the interests of free enterprise firms to donate money to the Conservative party and that the present rules are perfectly adequate to safeguard the interests of shareholders?

Mr. Newton: Obviously, I have a good deal of sympathy with what my hon. Friend has said. It is a matter for companies to make judgments and for shareholders to raise matter if they wish to do so.

Company Accounts

Mr. Andrew Smith: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many times in each of the last five years consent has been given for companies to omit details of their overseas subsidiaries from their reports and accounts.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Francis Maude): One hundred and fifty-eight exemptions from disclosing the identity of subsidiaries have been granted since January 1984.

Mr. Smith: Will the Minister tell the House which companies are involved and how many of that large number involve subsidiaries in South Africa? Are not the Government throwing a cloak of secrecy over apartheid connections and thereby deceiving both markets and investors who are concerned about the ethics of what they do?

Mr. Maude: No, I will not disclose those identities nor how many of the subsidiaries relate to any particular


country. In doing that, I am simply following the policy which has obtained for the past 22 years since the provision was introduced in the Companies Act 1967 by the then Labour Government.

Mr. Caborn: In giving companies permission to omit subsidiaries from their reports and accounts, is the Minister aware of the growing criticism about giving positive support for trade with apartheid South Africa? Is he further aware that the Commonwealth and EEC agreements to which we are party are not being observed. When will the Secretary of State honour those agreements and stop giving succour to the South African regime?

Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman talks about giving support to trade with South Africa. He may have forgotten that the last Labour Government sponsored, with public money, no fewer than 62 separate trade missions to South Africa. We no longer do that. As I understand it, companies follow the voluntary ban on new investment with South Africa, so there is nothing for the hon. Gentleman to get so excited about.

Internal Markets

Mr. Macdonald: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proposals he has to ensure that regions other than London and the south-east benefit from the European internal market after 1992.

Mr. Maude: The completion of the single European market by the end of 1992 will affect all regions, directly or indirectly. Our Europe-Open for Business campaign is therefore aimed at encouraging all firms, wherever they are located, to take action now to ensure that they benefit from the opportunities that the single market will bring.

Mr. Macdonald: Does the Minister agree that the loss to a Dutch fabrication yard of a British Aerospace order worth £10 million, to construct six platforms in the North sea as part of an air combat training facility, is an absolute disgrace when fabrication yards in the regions, and especially in my constituency, are crying out for such orders? Does the Minister agree that that shows that the Government have done nothing to prepare Britain for the single European market? Will he undertake to consult his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence and ensure that they will not make any commitment to utilise that British Aerospace facility until they have had the time to discuss in detail with British Aerospace how elements of that order may still be subcontracted to British yards?

Mr. Maude: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and I am aware of his local concern in this matter. However, this is a decision for British Aerospace to take in the context of the most competitive and suitable tender offered. It is not for the Government to comment or interfere in the commercial decisions of companies. As I understand it, the contract was put out to tender and, in the ordinary commercial way, the best tender was accepted.

Mr. William Powell: Does not the prospect of completion of the internal market by 1992 offer a powerful incentive for inward investment into the Community from third countries? Does my hon. Friend agree that half the

current inward investment in the Community is in Britain and that that is having a powerful stimulus on the economic growth of the regions of our country?

Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend is entirely right. There is a great deal of investment from overseas companies in the United Kingdom, partly for reasons connected with Europe, but principally because the United Kingdom is now the most hospitable and one of the most successful environments for manufacturing business.

Mr. John Garrett: Is it not the case that so far we have not done very well out of Europe, but Europe has done very well out of Britain? Does the Minister agree that official EEC statistics show that after 1992 manufacturing will decline in Britain in nearly every sector and that our manufacturing regions will lose out? Does he also agree that the Secretary of State's recent inept briefing of journalists showed that the Government had not taken on board the regional implications of 1992?

Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman could scarcely be more wrong. Britain has done and is doing extremely well in Europe, and will continue to do so because manufacturing industry is now more competitive, more profitable and has a sharper competitive edge than at any time for a generation.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: Does my hon. Friend agree that, far from the south-east alone benefiting from 1992, the areas that will benefit most are those areas such as the west midlands where unemployment is falling fastest, manufacturing investment is growing fast and infrastructure investments, such as the national convention centre, are taking place, and which attract nearly one third of manufacturing investment from overseas?

Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the considerable amounts of investment taking place in the west midlands, in which both he and I have a close constituency interest. The benefits of this massive investment boom are being felt in every part of the United Kingdom, and he is right to draw attention to that as well.

Mr. Alton: Does the Minister not understand the concern in the north-west that the south-east, which already has a bloated and overheated economy, will be the beneficiary of 1992? Well he therefore do everything possible to support the north-west regional TUC and the Merseyside chamber of commerce proposals for the Landbridge development so that the north-west may take advantage of the internal market when it is created?

Mr. Maude: I understand the concerns that are expressed, but I believe that they are mistaken. I visited Merseyside not long ago and was most encouraged by the great and widespread optimism there. The optimism and confidence coming from increased prosperity, increased investment and increased economic growth are by no means limited to London and the south-east. They are spread throughout the country. Landbridge is not a matter for me directly, but I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and I shall pass on his concerns.

Manufacturing Productivity

Mr. Boswell: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the growth in Britain's


manufacturing productivity since 1979; and what information he has on the figures for other major industrial countries.

Mr. Cran: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster by what amount productivity in the United Kingdom manufacturing industry has increased over the last 10 years; and what has been the comparable increase among the United Kingdom's main industrial competitors.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Robert Atkins): Comparable figures for major industrial countries are available only up to the third quarter of 1988. These show that in the 12 months ending September 1988 manufacturing productivity, as measured by output per person employed, in Italy increased by 38 per cent., in the United States by 37 per cent., in Japan by 31 per cent., in Canada by 27 per cent., in France by 25 per cent. and in Germany by 20 per cent. In the United Kingdom, it was 46 per cent. higher.

Mr. Boswell: Do not those excellent comparative figures, linked as they probably are with the low corporate tax rate, show that other countries will simply have to try harder? Should not the strong financial position of our companies give them adequate scope for further investment, training, research and development?

Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend is right. I am not sure that I agree entirely with his invitation to our competitors to try harder, but the statistics prove that the other countries to which I referred have a lesson to learn from our success.

Mr. Cran: Despite the considerable progress since 1979, does not a great deal remain to be done, as evidenced by the fact that recent OECD figures show that we still have a productivity gap of 30 per cent. vis-a-vis the United States and 25 per cent. compared with the rest of Europe?

Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend speaks with authority on these matters—[Interruption.] Opposition Members may laugh, but my hon. Friend is regional director of the Confederation of British Industry and knows what he is talking about. In those circumstances, they should pay attention to what he says. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that, while we have improved, we can always do better.

Mr. Hoyle: Should not the Minister, too, pay attention to the hon. Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) as the hon. Gentleman was talking about OECD figures which show that we are 16th out of 21 in the productivity league tables and are ahead only of countries such as Spain, Portugal, Greece and Turkey? Far from being a success story, is that not a story of failure?

Mr. Atkins: I am fascinated as to why the hon. Gentleman always insists on bringing doom and gloom to all our discussions about the successful statistics that I offer to the House, which are a demonstration of what this country has achieved in 10 years of Conservative Government.

Mrs. Mahon: Does the Minister accept that those figures are no use at all to my constituents because 300 job losses have been announced since Christmas, and 650 jobs were lost last year after the KP closure? When will he accept that certain industries are under dire threat and that his figures mean nothing to the textile industries and the

engineering and machine tool works in my constituency, all of which are under threat because the Government do not seem to have a coherent policy?

Mr. Atkins: I must take issue with the hon. Lady largely because, as she knows, I represent a northern constituency. In the north-west the signs are that while, of course, there are always problems in a competitive economy, none the less we have tried our best to ensure that the future for industry is bright. The statistics, facts and views that I have received from business men the length and breadth of the country seem to confirm that.

Mr. Batiste: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the best response by companies across the country to the challenges of 1992 is to improve productivity in the future in line with past increases so that they can face European competition not merely on equal terms but as leaders in important areas such as productivity?

Mr. Atkins: Yes, Sir.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister accept that the recent figures from the P and A management consultancy, which show a decline in jobs in manufacturing and in the service industry in Northern Ireland, are a cause for concern? As we approach 1992, what can the Government do to improve the situation?

Mr. Atkins: Matters relating to Northern Ireland are dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman's concern is brought to my right hon. Friend's attention.

Hotol

Mr. Atkinson: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the future of Hotol.

Mr. Atkins: British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce are pursuing the possibility of international collaboration on Hotol. The Government remain ready to assist in the search for potential collaborators. As I indicated in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) on 7 December last, I have raised this question with the United States authorities. The companies have initiated relevant contacts in the United States.

Mr. Atkinson: I am grateful that my hon. Friend accepts that such a high technology can be realised only by international collaboration. Does he agree that this country has a sad history of letting such inventions go with little return? Will he confirm that Hotol technology remains in British hands? Does he agree that a similar American project, WASP, for which Sheffield university recently received a development contract, offers a way forward for collaboration on our Hotol technology to be realised?

Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend is quite right. The substance of my earlier answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) which I repeated today, was that the discussions that I had last year in the United States with the space adviser to the President were along those lines. The national aerospace plane, which the United States Government and American companies are trying to


develop, is a project in which British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce are having preliminary discussions. 1 hope that those discussions will prove successful.

Mr. Stott: When the proof of concept study has been completed, will the Minister support the recommendations made by the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology which examined United Kingdom space policy? The Committee stated:
HOTOL development costs, perhaps of the order of £5 billion, would be far too large for its development to be a mainly private venture, indeed it could be undertaken only as a major inter-governmental collaboration project.
What are the Government's views about that? Does the Minister agree with the recommendations?

Mr. Atkins: In relation to Hotol, we have said all along that the amount of money required to keep the project going at the moment is relatively small and could be afforded by British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce. However, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, the long-term development will require many billions of pounds. That is why the Government have said that they are happy about collaboration and are positively encouraging it. However, a limited number of countries have so far said that they want to collaborate because they are not sure of the technology being developed in those countries. We are still considering the matter although, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, we have said that we are not prepared to provide the funding because we believe that it must come from a much wider collaboration. Nevertheless, the matter is constantly under review.

Sir Ian Lloyd: My hon. Friend will be aware that the European Commission, with some justification, recently expressed grave concern that western Europe as a whole was falling behind in space matters by comparison not only with the USSR and the United States but with Japan. The Commission suggests an elaborate programme of co-operation within western Europe to remedy that deficiency. Have the Government made any response?

Mr. Atkins: I believe that my hon. Friend refers to what was previously known as Euromart and related matters. We took a decision to participate strongly in that venture, although my hon. Friend will recognise that it is a wide-ranging area and one about which it is difficult to make predictions. Since Euromart has been subsumed into Brite Euram, we are supportive of it and are monitoring developments very closely. I hope shortly to be in discussion with industry representatives who are concerned about the matter so as to ensure that we represent the British case to the best of our ability.

"Not With Honour"

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will acquire "Not With Honour", an account of the Westland affair, by Magnus Linklater and David Leigh, for the library of his Department.

Mr. Newton: My Department already holds a copy of the book to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

Mr. Dalyell: I have two questions to ask the Secretary of State, of which I gave notice to Sir Brian Hayes' office. First, with reference to page 158 of "Not With Honour", is it true that Sir Brian Hayes and senior officials were against Leon Brittan going, and did they say so at any kind

of official meeting? Secondly, with reference to page 143, knowing of the Prime Minister's displeasure that the Law Officer's letter had been leaked, did Leon Brittan use that information to demand a knighthood, as a token certificate of clean political health?

Mr. Newton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving notice of his supplementary questions, but even with that notice I can add nothing to the full statements made to the House by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. If the hon. Gentleman expects otherwise, his optimism exceeds even his persistence.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: While I do not recommend that the book should be publicly burnt I hope that my right hon. Friend will take its conclusions with a pinch of salt. One of its authors, Mr. David Leigh, is hardly a dispassionate observer of the political scene but an embittered, Left-wing propagandist employed by Mr. Tiny Rowland. Mr. Leigh has just been taken to the cleaners by my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) for having written a pack of lies about my hon. Friend which were published in The Observer, which has just resulted in Mr. Leigh losing a libel action in the High Court.

Mr. Newton: The whole House will be grateful to my hon. Friend for the further intelligence that he has been able to give about that matter.

Toyota

Mr. Kennedy: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met representatives of Toyota; what subjects were discussed; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Newton: My right hon. and noble Friend recently held a meeting with the vice-president of Toyota, Mr. Tatsuro Toyoda, during which he made it clear that, were the company to decide to locate its project for a car manufacturing plant in the United Kingdom, it would receive a warm welcome from the Government. Toyota has been invited to work closely with our officials in pursuing its feasibility studies.

Mr. Kennedy: Given that welcome news of Toyota's interest in locating a plant in Britain—and that, if the venture is successful, there can be only one winner in terms of the fortunate site or region of the country that is chosen—what assessment have the Government made of the likely spin-off to the components industry, for example? Has Toyota given any indication of the type of trade union agreement that it would wish to reach for such a plant? Many of us in Scotland who witnessed the sad, sorry and disgraceful episode at Dundee, do not want a repeat performance of the Ford fiasco and the lost opportunity that occurred there.

Mr. Newton: I am sure that very nearly the whole House agrees with the hon. Gentleman's concluding remark. I am not in a position to speculate about Toyota's intentions, and I cannot make any authoritative estimate of the spin-off effects, but having seen some of the spin-off effects of Nissan's plant in the north-east it is clear that there would be substantial secondary business.

Mr. Jack: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the interest shown by Japanese companies such as Toyota in investing in the United Kingdom is a reflection of the


Government's economic policies, but what advice would he give areas such as Lancashire in which the rising sun has yet to be seen?

Mr. Newton: I would give them the advice, indeed the information, that the present significant amount of overseas investment is reaching all parts of the United Kingdom, which is very encouraging for the country and for its future in the single market.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Apart from the fact that the populist hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr Kennedy) does not know the first thing about what actually happened at Dundee, will the Minister bear in mind that Toyota is the only Japanese company that sponsors a pipe band? Is that not a good basis on which to hope that, when Toyota locates its new plant in Britain, I shall be able to welcome the company to the Central region of Scotland, where I assure the Minister that they will be very welcome?

Mr. Newton: I shall ask for the position of the pipe bands in the hon. Gentleman's constituency to be drawn to Toyota's attention in any further contacts that may take place.

Mr. Dickens: Is it not encouraging that countries all over the world are considering investing in the United Kingdom? Is that not because buying British now means travelling first class? It means obtaining goods of the right quality at competitive prices, delivered on time and with a good after-sales service.
It is the Conservative Government who have put the train back on the rails. Once again, British is best, and that is why the Japanese are looking towards us. If they would like to come to Oldham and Rochdale, they will receive a big welcome.

Mr. Newton: The answer to my hon. Friend's question is, broadly speaking, yes.

Interest Rates

Mr. McFall: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the cost to industry of the rise in base rates since April 1988.

Mr. Newton: The cost to industrial and commercial companies to date of the changes in bank base rates since April 1988, compared with the cost if bank base rates had remained the same since April 1988, is estimated to be about £0·8 billion. The hon. Member should bear in mind, however, that a 1 per cent. increase in interest rates, even if sustained for a full year, costs companies far less than a 1 per cent. increase in pay settlements.

Mr. McFall: The rate has increased from 7·5 per cent. to over 13 per cent. in nine months, and the Government's own financial statistics have shown that that has penalised British industry by over £6 billion. Does the Minister agree with the latest CBI survey, "Economic Priorities for 1989—Building on Business Success", which says that such a policy has a very detrimental effect on investment in British industry and gives an added twist to the inflationary spiral? How can the Minister possibly say that he is helping British industry with such a simplistic and blunderbuss monetary policy?

Mr. Newton: First, there is little doubt that most people in British industry would regard a major resurgence of

inflation as a significantly greater risk than the present level of interest rates. Our policy is directed at ensuring that we maintain low inflation, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
Secondly, the scale on which British companies are investing speaks for itself. I understand that in the hon. Gentleman's constituency in the past month or two there have been a number of significant proposals aimed at creating 700 new jobs—for example, from Allied Distillers and Sterling Investments.

Mr. Tim Smith: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that such has been the transformation in company liquidity since the early 1980s that many companies now have substantial amounts of cash in the bank? For instance, GEC has £1,500 million. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the figure of £0·8 billion that he gave the House is a net figure, and that many companies are actually better off?

Mr. Newton: I can certainly confirm—without going into detail for which my hon. Friend asks—that companies' profitability overall has increased considerably. That, of course, has been one of the main sources of funds for the recent rise in investment.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I add a little original thinking to the right hon. Gentleman's contribution? Is it not true that penal interest rates are no more than taxes paid to financial institutions and the private sector, as distinct from direct and indirect taxes which are paid to the Government and the public sector? What is the difference? Do not interest rates constitute no more than a form of taxation?

Mr. Newton: I am having some difficulty in following precisely what the hon. Gentleman has in mind. Interest rates represent the price of borrowing money, in the same way as other prices, including taxes levied, measure the cost of acquiring products. I do not understand what conclusion the hon. Gentleman is seeking to draw.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Is it not true that the average gearing of British companies has fallen from a near peak nine years ago of something like 45 per cent. to little more than half that today? Is not that an eloquent testimony to the success of the Government's economic policies towards the corporate sector as well as an important identification of the fact that companies will be well able to withstand the current temporary high level of interest rates?

Mr. Newton: I certainly agree with the general proposition that underlies my hon. Friend's question.

Trade Deficits

Mr. Dunnachie: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries are running a larger trade deficit as a percentage of gross domestic product than the United Kingdom.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Alan Clark): In 1987 Greece, Portugal, Turkey, Spain, Austria and the United States had larger visible trade deficits than the United Kingdom in relation to their gross domestic product.
The OECD figures for 1988 are not yet complete, but we already know that at least four countries will have deficits larger than the United Kingdom when measured on that basis.

Mr. Dunnachie: It seems strange that the noble Lord Young and the Department of Trade and Industry seem to have ignored or not noticed that our trade gap for 1988 is some £13 billion. That gap is so great that it will require a reduction in demand of about £40 billion, or about £30 per week per household to bridge the gap. Does it not follow that safe supply measures should be taken to increase the ability of British industry to meet the demands of the British economy?

Mr. Clark: I wish that the hon. Gentleman had read more copiously from his notes as I did not entirely follow his question. There is no dispute over the component elements of the deficit. Presumably the hon. Gentleman would not wish to restrict the import of semi-manufactures which feed British industry. The import of consumer goods is a function of consumer spending and it is well know that Opposition Members wish to restrict that by credit controls, wage controls and, for all I know, by exchange controls.

Mr. Charles Wardle: Does not one important key for reducing the trade deficit and making British goods more competitive rest in the hands of employers and employees throughout the country in this year's wage round and all future pay settlements?

Mr. Clark: It is a factor certainly, but I am never comfortable arguing that work people should be paid less in the interests of some wider objective. If their productivity and the quality of the goods that they produce measure up, they have every right to negotiate separately and independently with their employers on the appropriate rate.

Ms. Armstrong: Is it not a fact that one of the major problems that has led to our incredible balance of payments deficit is that we have lost the capacity to manufacture in many areas, and that areas such as mine, which used to be the powerhouse of the country where we could manufacture and produce products that were sold all over the world, have now lost the capacity to do that? The Government ought to be involved in increasing investment in manufacturing particularly in areas such as the north where we do it well.

Mr. Clark: Government involvement in manufacturing is the last thing that the manufacturing industry wants. In fact, there is absolutely no reason why something should not be made from scratch, providing that it is competitive and is of the required quality. One has only to look at the production of Nissan cars in a green field site to see that if the product is competitive and meets a demand, it will immediately take a piece of the market.

Productivity

Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the latest figures he has for the productivity levels in manufacturing industry.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Eric Forth): Productivity in manufacturing industry, as measured by

output per person employed, in the three months to November 1988 averaged 121·4, based on 1985 equal to 100. Productivity has grown by 7½ per cent. in the last year and by 52 per cent. since 1979.

Mr. Brown: In view of that answer, will my hon. Friend confirm that Britain now has the fastest-growing manufacturing output? Will he speculate on how that compares with where Britain was in the two decades prior to 1979?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend, with his usual perspicacity, has put his finger on the comparison. The truth is that productivity in this country is growing and has been growing at record levels. We are now outstripping all our major competitors. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that in the 1960s and 1970s the position was quite the reverse—we were then a picture of miserable failure. We are now a gigantic success.

Mr. Haynes: When will the Minister realise that in my constituency the hosiery and knitwear industry could increase its productivity if the Government did something about the massive imports? Those imports are crucifying that industry. When will the Government do something about it?

Mr. Forth: I do not know when the hon. Gentleman last consulted the consumers in his constituency on whether they would appreciate his removal of their freedom of choice in what they purchase. The hon. Gentleman appears to be suggesting that he would arbitrarily deny people the right to choose freely what they purchase. It is a matter of some regret that the hon. Gentleman undervalues the contribution being made by the workers and management in his constituency in their efforts to make their industry more competitive.

Mr. Devlin: Will the Minister confirm that in the north of England—where there is a significant part of our manufacturing industry—confidence is at an all-time high? The productivity gains that he has mentioned have been higher there than the national average.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is correct. My colleagues and I often visit companies in the north and throughout the country and we find nothing but confidence in the present and in the future. I believe that that is something from which we should take great heart, and we can be confident that it will continue.

Post Office Counters

Mr. Steel: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether, following the recommendations of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in its report, "Post Office Counter Services", he will ensure that the board of Post Office Counters has received prior commitments from its major clients that its services will continue to be used by them before a multi-million pound investment is made in automating the network; and what are the implications of the absence of such long-term commitment for this investment.

Mr. Newton: The Post Office will conduct a comprehensive financial appraisal of the proposed investment before deciding whether to seek the Government's approval to proceed. The appraisal will be


based on a full evaluation of a pilot scheme, to begin later this year, and will take into account the possible future use of counter services by existing major clients.

Mr. Steel: I appreciate all that, but surely the point is that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission was quite explicit in saying that we must safeguard this public investment by ensuring that, if automation goes ahead, the DSS, the DVLC at Swansea and other users will guarantee that they will use it. Otherwise, public money will be wasted. Why has that recommendation not been accepted by the Post Office?

Mr. Newton: For the reasons set out clearly in the Post Office's response to the recommendations of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission it thinks that it is entirely right to seek the maximum possible commitment from potential customers, but to fall short of the absolute prior commitment of the kind that the right hon. Gentleman suggested. Frankly, I believe that few businesses would not wish to take account of customers' intentions as declared in investment decisions, but they would not regard firm commitments as an absolute sine quo non before making any such decisions.

Mr. Soames: I note what my right hon. Friend has said, but does he agree that the Post Office counter services are by and large quite disgraceful? It is ridiculous that members of the general public should be kept waiting in some cases for hours at the only times when they are able to get to the Post Office to get what they need. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that, whatever the results of the investigation, he will ensure that services are greatly improved?

Mr. Newton: I note what my hon. Friend said. The Post Office is seeking ways of improving the efficiency of its services, including, as my hon. Friend will doubtless be aware, proposals for the future involving a number of offices being organised in a different way. I will certainly encourage the Post Office to pursue every way in which better services can be provided.

Mr. Henderson: Does the Minister recognise that since major changes have taken place in financial services in recent years, Post Office Counter Services has been operating with its hands tied behind its back? Does the Minister agree that if the Government want Post Office Counter Services to become more competitive in the high street marketplace, he should authorise an expansion of services to include such things as travel, financial services and ticket agency services?

Mr. Newton: We are prepared to look at specific proposals, if they make sense, on a case-by-case basis. The hon. Gentleman will probably be aware that I have recently agreed to the part of the Post Office dealing with television licensing taking on subscription management services in relation to satellite broadcasting because that was a sensible proposal. In general terms, one of the important things is the proposal to which the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) referred in his initial question, and we have authorised the pilot scheme for the automation of some aspects of counter services.

Science Parks

Mr. Stern: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has any proposals to further the establishment and development of science parks.

Mr. Forth: Science parks are already well established and growing fast in the United Kingdom. There are now nearly 40, with the likelihood of five more this year. Some help is available in the assisted areas for the development of science parks from Government development agencies.

Mr. Stern: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the advantages of such parks is the symbiosis they create with existing and new high technology industry in the area? Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the establishment of Emersons Green science park just outside Bristol, which will not only benefit existing high technology industry but will draw fresh industry to the area?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is correct. Science parks are a success story of considerable magnitude up and down the country. He is right in welcoming the prospect of a science park near his constituency so that people in the area will be able to enjoy the benefits that have been enjoyed by others already associated with science parks.

Mr. David Shaw: Does my hon. Friend have any information on the number of jobs that have been created directly or indirectly by science parks? Can he compare those figures with the position between 1974 and 1979?

Mr. Forth: It is difficult to give my hon. Friend an exact figure, because the nature of employment in science parks is variable and difficult to define. I will endeavour to give my hon. Friend an accurate figure if he will allow me to write to him. It is evident to everybody that the science park venture has helped to combine education institutions and the world of business to bring us the best hope for growth in employment in the future.

Trade Balance

Mr. Teddy Taylor: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the surplus or deficit in trade in manufactured goods with the European Economic Community and the rest of the world, respectively, over the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available.

Mr. Alan Clark: In 1988 United Kingdom trade in manufactures was in deficit by £12½ billion with the European Community and by £2 billion with the rest of the world.

Mr. Taylor: As the deficit with the EEC has increased steadily in every year since 1973 to its present horrific level and as that puts at risk the Government's successful economic policies, does the Minister agree that there is a case for a special detailed inquiry into what is going wrong in our trade with the EEC, whether it is non-tariff protection or something else? Does he agree that in view of the December 1988 figures, which were the worst in recorded history, with £3 of goods coming in for every £2 going out, there might be a case for replanning the Channel tunnel to have two tunnels going in one direction and one in the other?

Mr. Clark: Over the years I have got into enough trouble by commenting on the Channel tunnel to prevent


me from doing so on the Floor of the House. The circumstances to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention cannot persist indefinitely. After 1992 the imbalances in that form will no longer exist. There is a school of thought which argues that after 1992 and the completion of the internal market, deficits will disappear in that form and the imbalances will be simply regional and sectoral.

Mr. James Lamond: Does the Minister understand that we know that he does not believe those views any more than we do? How do these disastrous figures square with the rosy picture that has just been painted about the alleged confidence of manufacturing employers in this country? When the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs says that his Department has received nothing but views of confidence from manufacturers, should not the hon. Gentleman tell him of the views he has received from textile manufacturers who, despite the increases in productivity and the investment that they have made, now find that this Government are the worst they have ever had to work under?

Mr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman does not do justice to the situation. Almost half our manufactured exports go to the Community, which is by far our largest single market. The level of confidence in the United Kingdom's economy and the amount of internal investment from, for example, the United States and Japan that it is drawing in, continuously—and now sharply—raises our level of manufacturing. It is probable—indeed, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed this opinion as recently as in the Autumn Statement—that this deficit will diminish over the medium term.

Mr. Churchill: Is my hon. Friend aware that, whereas private enterprise, particularly in the north of England, is well advanced in plans to take advantage of the opportunities afforded by 1992, the Government seem to have a long way to go yet in that direction? Adequate infrastructure should be in place by the time the Channel tunnel opens, so that we can run high-speed freight trains and passenger services. We also need an adequate motorway system to enable us to enjoy, and capitalise on, the benefits offered by the single European market. Will my hon. Friend have a word with our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to ensure that proper progress is made?

Mr. Clark: I shall do so, but my right hon. Friend answers questions on this topic from time to time and I suggest that my hon. Friend addresses his questions directly to him.

Manufacturing Investment

Mr. Pike: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in which regions there is a lower investment in constant terms in manufacturing industry in the latest year for which figures are available than in 1979.

Mr. Atkins: The latest available regional data are for 1986. In real terms, capital expenditure in manufacturing industry in 1986 was lower than in 1979 for all regions in the United Kingdom, largely due to the world recession in

the early 1980s. Since 1986, manufacturing investment in the country as a whole has risen sharply, and is predicted to rise even faster.

Mr. Pike: Will the Minister recognise that, in the north-west region, investment in manufacturing industry for the period he mentioned was down 38 per cent., jobs in manufacturing industries were down 38 per cent. and output from manufacturing industries was down 18 per cent.? Are not those figures appalling for a key manufacturing region of the nation? Will we not further suffer as a result of the Channel tunnel and 1992, unless the Government act positively to assist our manufacturing regions?

Mr. Atkins: As a north-west Member, I resent most strongly the hon. Gentleman's attempt to do down the north-west when he knows as well as I that the facts on the ground, in his and my constituencies, and in those represented by my hon. Friends, give the lie to what he suggests. Manufacturing investment and productivity are at an all-time high, and the gap caused by the recession in 198–182 meant that any delay in the increase was to be expected. He knows as well as I just how good the position is.

Mr. Thurnham: Does my hon. Friend welcome the fact that once small manufacturers in the regions—such as Reebok in Bolton-have succeeded in developing into large international trading concerns and have brought great wealth to this country? Will he do all that he can to assist international companies with headquarters in the regions, instead of listening to the small-minded views of Opposition Members?

Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend, along with many other Conservative Members who represent northern constituencies, spends as much time as I do trying to encourage people to come to our region, to build headquarters of companies and to invest there. The activities of Labour Members in doing down our region do not help.

Internal Market

Mr. Jim Marshall: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many standards set under the development of the internal market are based on British standards; and how many are based on (a) German standards, (b) French standards and (c) those of other European Community countries.

Mr. Maude: The European standards bodies, Cen and Cenelec, adopt wherever appropriate agreed international standards. Very few European standards are based on an existing standard of any one Community country.

Mr. Marshall: Does the Minister accept that there is concern in the United Kingdom that other European countries appear to have more success in influencing EEC standards and that this can have significant consequences for industrial costs? Will he try with greater urgency to ensure that at least one EEC standard is based on a United Kingdom standard?

Mr. Maude: One European standard based on an existing standard is, for example, the commonly used BS 5750 on quality assurance. I am aware that there is concern about this issue and that it is, as the hon. Member says, an


issue which matters. Industry in this country has not taken the standard-setting process as seriously as it should, and certainly not as seriously as it has been taken by industry in Germany. But in the last year, since we have been urging industry in this country to do more in this respect—and it lies with industry and not with the Government to do it—the situation has improved greatly. But I join the hon. Gentleman in urging particularly those in manufacturing industry to take this matter extremely seriously and to attach as high priority to it as does industry in Germany.

Mr. Dykes: Now that we have been involved with the EEC for nearly 16 years and are gradually getting used to working constructively with our foreign friends at long last, is the Minister satisfied with the developing regime for origin marks and trade marks in the Community on the basis of being voluntary and not compulsory in each country, but with an agreed EC standard if necessary?

Mr. Maude: A directive and regulations on Community trade marks are being negotiated. Those will have the sort of beneficial effect to which my hon. Friend refers and will, at the same time, reduce costs to business and make life easier for it.

Mr. Gould: What confidence can British industry have in a Government who have themselves failed lamentably to make adequate preparations for 1992? Is the political briefing prepared by the Minister's civil servants in response to the Labour party's analysis of the Giacconi report the best they can do, and why were civil servants involved in that exercise in the first place?

Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman has so little of substance to offer that he has to make use of that tawdry little effort. I sympathise with him, because he has no experience of Government and has so few colleagues with such experience, that he will not understand that it is not only proper for civil servants, but that it is their duty, to brief Ministers on any report that comments on Government policy. The document to which I believe he

refers mentioned two reports about 1992. One was by the London business school and was rather good. The other was on behalf of the Labour party and was rather bad.

Cars

Mr. Adley: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the implications for the most recently published trade statistics of the practice of United States-owned car manufacturers importing into the United Kingdom cars assembled outwith the United Kingdom.

Mr. Alan Clark: The complex pattern of trade between national plants is subject to so many variables as to rob any estimate based thereon of tangible significance. [Interruption.] I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that I wrote that personally.

Mr. Adley: Will my hon. Friend accept that that is intellectually interesting but politically unsatisfactory? Does he agree that the label "British", as applied, say, to cars manufactured by American-owned companies and assembled in Belgium, Spain or West Germany, is inaccurate? Does he agree also that, for example, Japanese cars, which are also foreign-owned, are at least being built in this country? In view of the constant advice to "Buy British", is it not important that the statistics that he does not know should be known so that we may use the phrase "Buy British" to mean something?

Mr. Clark: There is a lot in what my hon. Friend says. The mass manufacturers have a comprehensive interchange of component supply which entails some confusion. The engines for the Fords that count in the German production total are made in the United Kingdom, just as the engines for the Vauxhalls and Peugeots that count in the United Kingdom production total are made in Germany or in France. It depends how narrowly my hon. Friend wishes to draw his definition. It might mean that the British consumer, if he really wanted to buy British, would be left with a choice of only Jaguar, Range Rover or Morgan.

Business Rates

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on business rates.
The Local Government Finance Act 1988 provides for a uniform business rate in England and in Wales and for a revaluation of non-domestic property. These changes will take effect on 1 April 1990. The new arrangements will mean the end of wide variations in rate poundages between different areas; and rateable values will be brought up to date to reflect accurately the relative benefits of different types of property in different locations. This will provide a welcome incentive for businesses to expand in the currently less economically buoyant areas.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I have considered the Inland Revenue's preliminary sample survey of the likely combined effects of the 1990 revaluation and the introduction of the uniform business rate. The results of the survey must be interpreted with caution: they give only a general indication of possible changes in rate bills from 1990. Subject to that important qualification, the survey suggests that rateable values will increase from 1973 levels by around seven and a half times on average in England and by around eight times on average in Wales.
It is our intention to fix the business rate poundage in 1990–91 so as to raise in real terms broadly the same amount of rates from private business and nationalised industries as in 1989–90. So this increase in rateable values by seven to eight times does not mean that rate bills will go up by seven or eight times. That is because, to secure the same overall yield as in 1989–90, the rate in the pound will fall to between one seventh and one eighth of the present national average poundage. On this basis the poundage would be in the range 30p to 35p if the business rate were introduced today. This means that the average rate bill payable by businesses will be the same as before the change in real terms. But there will, of course, be wide variations in actual bills, depending upon how the rateable value of the particular property changes relative to the average, and whether the present local rate poundage is above or below the average.
The survey suggests that the broad effects of the uniform business rate and the revaluation, taken together, will be that businesses in the north and midlands will tend to pay less, and businesses in southern England will generally face increases. As a general rule, factories and warehouses will tend to pay less, while shops and offices will pay more. Overall, business in the north and midlands is projected to enjoy rate reductions of some £800 million once the transition is complete. In Wales businesses in the valleys will tend to gain, but the shift in burden between the valleys and the rest of Wales will not be very large.
To give businesses time to adjust to their new rate bills, we are proposing transitional arrangements to introduce the changes gradually. Those arrangements will be self-financing. There will be limits on the percentage by which the rate bill for any property may change from one year to the next, for the first five years of the new system at least. For properties in England and Wales facing increases the limit will be 20 per cent. generally, but to help smaller businesses there will be a lower limit of 15 per cent. for small properties, those with new rateable values below

£7,500 in London and £5,000 elsewhere. Arrangements in Scotland are, of course, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, but he proposes comparable protection for business ratepayers facing increases in rates as a result of the revaluation in Scotland in 1990.
For properties in England due to benefit from rate reductions, I shall decide finally on the percentages by which changes will be phased when I have fuller information in the summer, but present projections imply that limits on annual reductions of 15 per cent. for small properties and 10 per cent. for large would offset the cost of the protection for losers. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will, similarly, base his final decisions on phasing of reductions for Welsh ratepayers on later information, but present projections indicate that slightly higher limits would be sufficient in Wales to offset the cost of protection for losers.
Compared to present rate bills, the percentage increase for losers is greater than the percentage reduction for the gainers because the losers as a group have substantially lower rate bills at present. All these limits are net of the annual change in the rate poundage resulting from the link to the retail prices index, and they are compound, in that, after the first year, the maximum percentage increase or decrease would be calculated from the rate bill in the preceding year.
We wish to give the highest possible priority to preparing fully and promptly for the new business rating system, and have therefore concluded that it would be right, in order to reduce the incentive for business ratepayers, to propose changes in the old 1973 rating list, if the sole purpose is to secure a slightly better position under the transitional arrangements. We therefore propose that in 1990–91 the base liability, to which the transitional limits will be applied, should be calculated using the rateable value in the list today, adjusted only for any changes resulting from ratepayers proposals to amend the value received by the valuation office by yesterday.
Ratepayer proposals to amend the 1973 list received by the valuation office today or in the future, including those posted before today but not received until today, will not be reflected in the transition. Any changes in rateable values in the 1973 list resulting from existing or future proposals made by the valuation office will, however, be taken into account in the transition.
Ratepayers will still have the right to propose changes to the 1973 list, and, if such proposals lead to reductions in value, will get the benefit until March 1990, but not thereafter. They will, of course, have the right to make proposals in relation to the 1990 list.
We believe that business ratepayers as a whole will welcome our intention to concentrate on getting the new system right and thus to discourage further attempts to change rateable values which have stood for up to 16 years.
The powers in the 1988 Act to make regulations are inadequate to facilitate transitional arrangements of the kind I have described. We shall therefore propose amendments to the 1988 Act in the Local Government and Housing Bill. In order to give businesses and local authorities as much certainty about the transition as possible, it is our intention, after consultation, to bring forward amendments setting out the arrangements in the Bill itself rather than in subsequent regulations.
We are today issuing and placing in the Library a consultation paper, which includes the results of the Inland Revenue survey referred to earlier, setting out the details of the transitional arrangements and inviting comments.

Dr. John Cunningham: The Secretary of State has made a long, on the whole vague and generalised statement which is apparently meant to calm fears about what is in store for business ratepayers, particularly in the south of England. It will not do so, because it leaves people in the dark. It does not take us any further, except that the Secretary of State has admitted that the 1988 Act is inadequate to deal with the scale of the increases in their taxes that business people will face.
The idea of a national business tax was always a bad one, but does not the Secretary of State recognise that within one year of the reality of change business people still have no clear or accurate idea about what will hit them as a result of the Government's proposals?
The Secretary of State carefully and partially mentioned a reduction in bills of £800 million in the north. He was far less candid about who would pick up the tab for that. Nor does his statement mention exactly what the increases in bills will be for people in the south. Is it not clear from his proposals that many business people will see their bills double, treble or even quadruple as a result of the proposals?
Why does not the Secretary of State publish exemplifications, or perhaps he will be able to tell us that they are included as worked examples in his consultation paper, which we have not yet seen? I hope that one way or another, either in the consultation paper or in some other way, he will publish real worked examples about the implications of his national business tax. If he argues, as he and his colleagues have done, that rates increases drive out jobs, what are the implications of the increases in London and the south-east for employment in businesses?
Can the Secretary of State say what size of property in London will benefit from his proposals for small businesses? Is not he really talking about an office which will accommodate simply one or two people? Judging by the scale of the figures in the statement, it certainly would not be much bigger than that. Will multiple shop and office owners or occupants gain on each of their premises, and will not that be a distortion of the idea of what he is proposing—to help small businesses?
When the reality of the increases on businesses is realised, there will be uproar. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not use his powers set out in the poll tax legislation to give business a tax holiday at the expense of poll tax payers?

Mr. Tony Favell: What about Cumbria?

Dr. Cunningham: Cumbria does not want the poll tax or the national business tax: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that for nothing.
Is not all this the reason why the Confederation of British Industry says that it cannot support a national business tax, and why the Institute of Directors says:
A good local tax must be fair and accountable and the proposal for a uniform business rate runs totally contrary to that principle"?
Is not that why the National Chamber of Trade says that a uniform business rate is not acceptable to it, and why the Forum of Private Business says that the Government's rate

reform proposals will have a disastrous effect on most of the United Kingdom's small business sector? Is not that why the National Federation of Self-Employed says that a national business tax is most unwelcome?
The Secretary of State should recognise that there is not a scintilla of support for any of this in the business community.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman confessed, despite the fact that he had the statement an hour or so ago, that he was in the dark about what it meant.

Dr. Cunningham: That is not true. I did not have it an hour ago, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it. That is a lie.

Mr. Ridley: That was the case yesterday. Yesterday the hon. Gentleman had had the Bill for 10 days, but he 'was still in the dark. He is short on argument—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that we have a Committee stage under the guillotine later today, so I must limit the time on the statement. Will the Secretary of State get on with the answer, please?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman is short on argument and long on adjectives.

Mr. John Watts: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I distinctly heard the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) use the word "lie".

Mr. Speaker: That is unparliamentary, but I did not hear it myself.

Dr. Cunningham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is right. In a moment of anger, I used the word "lie" because the Secretary of State said that I had had the statement for an hour. That is not true, and he knows it. I have had the statement for 25 minutes. I withdraw willingly my use of the word. However, I hope that everybody is now well aware of the way in which the Secretary of State deliberately uses misleading statements in the House.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman says that he has had the statement for only 20 minutes—[HON. MEMBERS: "Twenty-five minutes."] If he cannot understand it in 25 minutes, he is no damned good—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must repeat to the Secretary of State and to the whole House that we have a timetable motion today on the Official Secrets Bill. I hope that we can get on with the substance of the statement, rather than seeking to score party points.

Mr. Ridley: I was hoping to do so, Mr. Speaker. I shall now answer the questions.
First, the Local Government Finance Act 1988 is not inadequate to deal with the problem except in relation to the legal powers contained in it to bring in the transitional schemes. Secondly, the reduction of the rate bills in the five midlands and northern regions, based on this year's figures, would be about £800 million after the transitional period and in the north-west region, part of which the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) personally represents, it would be £310 million.
I do not know whose side I he hon. Gentleman is on. It is his Labour councils in the north-west that have been extorting that amount of money from business, with


disastrous effects on the economy and employment, which are Labour's legacy in the north-west. Our proposals will release business and workers in the north-west from the tyranny that Labour has imposed on them for its expensive and expansionist policies.
All that I have sought to do with the new business rate is to base the tax paid on genuine capital values. The Labour party's policy is to base the taxation of domestic ratepayers on up-to-date capital values, so it can hardly complain because we seek to base business taxation on up-to-date capital values. The survey is in the Library at the moment, so the hon. Member for Copeland can see the information currently available to the Government from the Inland Revenue.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the small business relief. It will be £7,500 rateable value on the new lists in London and £5,000 elsewhere. Businesses included in that will be 60 per cent. of total ratepayers. That is not the small minority that the hon. Gentleman suggested. Of course, it will include multiples because there is no way of separating them out from those who have single small premises. Nevertheless, it would be churlish and stupid of him not to realise that the added transitional relief for small businesses will be welcomed.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House of my earlier comments. I shall allow questions to continue until quarter past 4 because of the timetable motion. I draw the attention of the House to the concluding remarks of the Secretary of State when he said that the consultation paper was being placed in the Library and that comments on it would be invited. We shall undoubtedly return to this subject on other occasions.

Mr. John Heddle (Mid-Staffordshire): Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that industry and commerce in my constituency and in the west midlands will be grateful for the transitional arrangements? Will he confirm that if the Labour Government had not fudged commercial revaluation in 1978 these transitional arrangements might never have been necessary? Will he further confirm that as this increase in rates will be absorbed ultimately in a stabilising of rents at a time when commercial and industrial tenants will have to absorb VAT on rent, fuel and power despite a robust defence against that in the European courts, the five-year provision should be read with at least flexibility?

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The likely reduction in the rates bill in the west midlands will be about £200 million per year after the transition. My hon. Friend's other point—that the 1978 revaluation should have been undertaken—is absolutely sound. If we do not have revaluation, how can we possibly have a property tax because we shall not know the value of the property?
I confirm what I said in Committee. If at the end of the first five-year transitional period there are still major anomalies and large increases pending at the second revaluation for a significant number of businesses, we have the power to introduce a second transitional scheme for the second quinquennium. Indeed, as it is no concern of

the Labour party, I am quite prepared to think of one for the third, fourth or fifth quinquennium, when no doubt we shall still be responsible for such matters.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Does the Secretary of State accept that many smaller businesses will be disappointed that the transitional protection is to limit increases to between 15 and 20 per cent. when they have been pushing for a limit of 10 per cent.? Does he agree that it is difficult for smaller businesses to make up that sum annually, especially if they are shops? Will he accept that he was wrong to suggest that only areas in the north have problems of poverty, because many rural areas also have such problems and they have deliberately held down the national business rate and their provision of services to help with employment? Businesses in Cornwall will be disappointed that the national business rate will mean that they will not only have to pay increased rates but continue to sacrifice services.

Mr. Ridley: If we had a tax based on property—after all, rents tend to be based on property values—we would achieve a better distribution of business if we valued the property and charged the rent, and in this case the rates, on the true value of the property. I do not believe that small businesses will suffer with the transitional arrangements because those that are paying far too much at present are severely disadvantaged against their competitors. It is right from the point of view of fair competition that small businesses, in whatever part of the country they are located, should pay the tax based on the true value rather than the value of 16 years ago.
I realise that the south-west is not a gainer from this. However, my point is a true one. If we are talking about a property tax and the Social and Liberal Democratic party is not averse to property taxes, that party cannot quibble at the thought that a property tax should be based on the true value, just like income tax.

Mr. Michael Grylls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that most sensible businesses throughout the country will recognise that the introduction of a universal business rate is a good step forward and that it will give small independent firms, especially in Labour-controlled areas, protection from irresponsible Labour councils, which have so often done their best to put such firms out of business?
I thank my right hon. Friend for listening to the representations made by the small firms organisations that I brought to see him. The fact that he listened and has introduced these transitional arrangements is something to be pleased about. However, if there are any problems with this, will my right hon. Friend listen again to any representations that are made on his consultative paper because obviously he, I and everyone else do not want to damage any of the firms that are, at last, doing so well in this country?

Mr. Ridley: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and I am grateful for what he said. It might bring the point home if I say that the reduction in rates in a local authority such as North Tyneside will be as much as 26 per cent. after the transitional period. Rates are one of the chief reasons for the appalling unemployment problems in such an area. I also agree that it was right to make a specially slower transitional period for the smaller businesses, and


Conservative Members who have argued that case have made the case sufficiently well for the differential that I have announced today.

Mr. Donald Anderson: As there is a separate business rate for Wales, was there any reason in principle why there should not be a separate statement for Wales? The Secretary of State said that the shift in burden from the valleys to the rest of Wales will not be large. Can he give some sign of the scale of that shift? Does this imply a substantially reduced phasing period?

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Welsh Office will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I hesitate to say much more about Wales. Little other than crude data are available, either for England or Wales, because we are working only on summary figures from the Inland Revenue. I think I am right in saying that changes in Wales are unlikely to have a great effect on any by-elections taking place there at the moment.

Mr. Robin Squire: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the central purpose behind the introduction of the unified business rate was to reduce rates in areas of relatively cheap property, if only to provide an extra incentive for investment in those areas? Will he also confirm that in recent years, in two parts of London alone, Ealing and Waltham Forest, the increase that businesses faced was massively more than the maximum increase that he has announced today will be faced by businesses?

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend is right. The advantages are to those in areas where there has been a deliberate policy of exploitation due to Labour councils trying to extort money from defenceless industry, which cannot even vote. This relief will be welcome in such areas. Its incidence is different in different parts of the country, and in some council areas in the south of England, which are also pressing their business men, there will be benefits as well.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Is the Secretary of State aware that the reference in his statement to Scotland is a gratuitous insult to Scottish Members of Parliament? The Secretary of State for Scotland should have made that reference. It reveals the extent of the betrayal of Scottish industry by Scottish Office Ministers. When the Secretary of State talks about the Labour Government's failure to revalue in 1978, he should bear in mind that he has had 10 years to revalue in England and has done nothing about it. With the revaluation in 1990, Scotland will have had four revaluations as opposed to one in England and Wales. The Secretary of State should be aware that his Scottish Office colleagues have put the petrochemical industry in my constituency at a serious disadvantage compared with petrochemical industries in the rest of the United Kingdom, and the same is true of other industries. Scottish Office Ministers should resign en bloc today for their betrayal of Scottish industry.

Mr. Ridley: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said. Perhaps it will be some comfort for him to know that we are pressing on with aligning the basis of assessment for rates as between Scotland and England, which is the fundamental problem in this respect, and it will not be long before I am able to

announce changes to the decapitalisation rate, which is again different as between Scotland and England. I hope that those two moves will, between them, be a big step towards achieving a better balance between the treatment of businesses in Scotland and Wales.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Scottish Office Ministers have the fullest support of Conservative Members? Does he also agree that the reason why certain sections of Scottish industry have problems is that we have somewhat perversely pursued an independent and separate rating system? Opposition Members should bear that in mind. Can my right hon. Friend say anything more about the progress that is being made in the joint talks between the assessors in Scotland and the Inland Revenue in England? There is some concern that progress has not been as fast as it might have been.

Mr. Ridley: I confirm that the two problems with which we are grappling in relation to the difference between Scotland and England are the basis of assessment and the decapitalisation rate. As I have said, the Government hope to make a reasonably early announcement about the latter. However, the former requires two different sets of valuers or assessors to reach an agreement about the best practical means of going about their business. I do not have direct control over that. I hope that the two sets of valuers will hear what my hon. Friend said and will speed up their discussions to agree a common basis. I am sure that the English would not wish to have the Scottish system imposed upon them any more than the Scots would want the English system imposed on them.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: The Secretary of State said that there will be a comparable measure for Scotland. Will he confirm that that would still leave Scottish businesses with a massive disadvantage built into the system? Is he aware of the effects of water rate changes which will add burdens of 100 per cent. or more to Scottish businesses in comparison with their English competitors? Does he accept that the measure that he is bringing forward is bad news for Scotland because of the failures of the Scottish Office? When can we expect a statement from the Scottish Office?

Mr. Ridley: If the hon. Gentleman looks carefully at the figures, I suspect that he will find that there is another problem. Scottish local authorities spend even more than Labour-controlled English authorities.

Mr. John Butterfill: I thank my right hon. Friend for honouring the commitment which he gave me in Committee on the Local Government Finance Act 1988 when I withdrew my amendment about small businesses. Many small businesses will be pleased to hear my right hon. Friend's statement, but he will appreciate that the rateable value limit which I suggested in my amendment was somewhat higher than the one he has suggested today. I know that my right hon. Friend's figures are based on estimates, but if there are anomalies in the valuation and some areas suffer much worse than others, will he consider not confining his exemptions simply to London, but include other areas which need to be singled out for special treatment?

Mr. Ridley: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for having the foresight to move his amendment on the transitional


basis suggested and for including a special provision for small businesses, which the Government thought was exactly the right way to proceed. This is only a consultative document and we will listen to what people say about it. It is based on a survey by the Revenue which is by no means more than a summary survey. It does not include vast numbers of individual properties which we could consider in detail.
It is certainly right that there should be flexibility when we design the final scheme. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that some finality is also necessary so that when we include an amendment in the Bill we have the opportunity to give business men the full knowledge of the situation. On the information available, we have got the balance about right for larger and smaller businesses.

Mr. John Battle: Will the Secretary of State clarify his statements? He said twice that the position was based on capital values, yet in his original statement he said that it was based on rental values. Does he understand his statement? It seems that the proposal is a cushioning of the worst impact of the unified business rate. It is now a misnomer to call it a unified business rate because of the distinction between the service economy and the manufacturing economy which is built into the statement. Is it not the case that a company like McDonald's will do slightly better while manufacturing industries in constituencies like mine will suffer as a result of the statement and will not gain?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman is technically right. Rates are based on rental values, but in terms of business premises they are closely and directly allied to capital values, as he is aware. That is the basis which the Labour party has selected for one part of its system of local taxation of domestic consumers.
The hon. Gentleman said that there is a distinction between retail and manufacturing businesses. That is not right. Businesses are valued according to the value of their properties, not according to the nature of their activities. However, we have attempted in the consultative document—which is in the Library—to analyse the relative effect on different classes of businesses such as retail, industrial, wholesale and offices. That is not because we single out those activities, but because the apparent results of the survey show that those activities have moved in their values in different directions.

Sir Peter Horden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, unpalatable though his proposals may be to the south-east, they are manifestly fairer than the present system, which is based on an out-of-date valuation? It is extraordinary for the Labour party to complain about shift in resources amounting to £800 million to the regions, which badly need it. During the process of consultation, will my right hon. Friend take into account the need for an adequate transitional period? Will he also consider the effect of the new rate support grant proposals which are under discussion and that they must be based on ability to pay rather than on some obscure system?

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I receive a welcome—sometimes qualified—from my hon. Friends who have businesses in their constituencies which will be asked to pay a little more, while the Opposition are so deep

in their desire to oppose at any price, that they seem to resist benefits to businesses in areas where the Opposition are strongly represented which are of considerable importance to prosperity and employment in those areas. That is carrying the principle of opposition beyond the call of duty.
My statement does not deal with the basic concept of the unified business rate. It deals with the transition to moderate the influence of the UBR on the areas which are adversely affected. Today's proposals should benefit the area represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern).
The needs grant, as we like to call it, must be adequate to meet the needs of every area because the combination of the needs grant and the effect of the UBR will mean that if every local authority spends according to the Government's standard the community charge will be the same in every local authority. Therefore, the citizen will be able to define whether the local authority is extravagant or economical. As my hon. Friend has said, it is most important that we get it right.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop. No, Mr. Campbell-Savours.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: There is a slight difference, Mr. Speaker.
How can the Secretary of State guarantee Cumbria that there will be a reduction in the business rates paid when he knows that it is impossible to set out the position of west Cumbria until the revaluation is finished? He is producing mythical figures. He cannot give that guarantee. Is not the simple truth that, if any businesses in west Cumbria will benefit from the changes, the people who will pay will be those in west Cumbria who will pay double, treble or quadruple their present rates by way of higher levels of poll tax? They will pay for this nonsense.

Mr. Ridley: The current rate poundage in Allerdale is 286p and it is that in Copeland as well. If the unified business rate were in existence for 1988–89, in Allerdale and in Copeland there would be a reduction of 16 per cent. in the business rate poundage. On revaluation, it is likely that the north-west region will lose £300 million of its rate burden. If the hon. Member thinks that those figures are anything but good for his constituents, he is causing needless concern among them—because his pathological desire to oppose is greater than his interest in his constituents.

Mr. Speaker: I apologise to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). It is a good thing that the House does not know what goes through my mind all the time.

Mr. Gary Waller: Is my right hon. Friend aware that businesses in the north of England anxiously await implementation of the revaluations? To the extent that the transitional arrangements extend the period beyond which businesses are unable to compete on a level playing field, will my right hon. Friend resist calls to prolong the process unreasonably?

Mr. Ridley: Companies that have been overcharged by Labour authorities in the north, and which see relief coming through the national business rate, will not relish the transitional agreement—any more than will those businesses that have to pay more. We sought to get the


balance right between the gainers and the losers, but it is intolerable when the gainers—who, apart from my hon. Friend, are represented mainly on the Opposition Benches—will not accept the benefits that the Government have brought to their constituents and to their chances of gainful employment. That is indeed callous.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: As the right hon. Gentleman's statement has been particularly obscure in respect of the valleys of south Wales, can he give some optimistic figures for my constituency? Cynon Valley is the poorest district in the whole of Wales, and its second largest town, Mountain Ash, has no new industry and declining commerce. Three major retail chains—Boots, Dewhurst and Woolworth—are pulling out of the town. Can the right hon. Gentleman produce figures to prove that my constituents have cause for optimism resulting from his proposals?

Mr. Ridley: I do not have breakdowns for particular local authority areas or constituencies, because the Inland Revenue has not yet done that work. I understand from my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Welsh Office that the valleys will benefit from the transitional arrangments I announced—though the amount of benefit to each business will depend on when the revaluation is made.

Mr. Tony Favell: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, if Opposition Members do not want the £800 million he mentioned earlier, he will redirect it to Conservative-held seats in the north where people do not look a gift horse in the mouth?

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend's suggestion is both slightly improper and impracticable. I am not sure how many seats in the north will be held by Conservatives; on 5 May there may be many more of them.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is the Secretary of State aware that members of the all-party retail group were the guests this morning of David Sieff and of senior management of Marks and Spencer? Is he aware also of their concern about certainty in business? They ask, as do many other businesses, why the rate cannot be set earlier than two weeks before it is likely to be implemented. Is there any reason why it cannot be set sooner?

Mr. Ridley: I was not aware of that meeting or of Mr. David Sieff's remarks. However, in future the rate will be set by the Government on a national basis, and it cannot be set at a higher level than is dictated by the increase in the retail prices index. The only uncertainty will be

whether the increase will be at the level of the RPI, or a little lower. That arrangement is a vast improvement on having the business rate at the mercy of a local authority, which may announce an increased rate in March for payment in April. I feel sure that the retail group to which the hon. Gentleman refers and Mr. Sieff will unanimously welcome that vast improvement—against which the hon. Gentleman voted.

Sir George Young: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the business community generally is grateful to him for the long notice that he gives of 1 he rate for 1990–91? Such advance notice was not available under the present system. The figure of 30p to 35p that my right hon. Friend mentioned is at the lower end of the forecast, which will bring pleasure to the business community. Can my right hon. Friend say whether, because of transitional relief, businesses in Ealing already facing a 35 per cent. rate increase next year will be penalised in future years, because that high rate will form the basis on which transitional relief will be given? Will businesses in Ealing have to pay for next year's rate increase for another five or six years hence?

Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. He is right to say that we are trying to give businesses as much notice as we can of every part of what is a complicated picture—and my statement today is evidence of that. I believe that it will surprise many businesses that the unified rate will be between 30p and 35p, because many people forecast a much higher poundage rate.
My hon. Friend is also right to say that, if a local authority behaves extravagantly in setting its rate for next year, while that will not affect the basis on which a business starts on the new rate basis in 1990, it will affect the totality of the business rates pool. Some local authorities may imagine that they can increase the total business rate pool by imposing extravagant rate increases next year, but the Government are not bound to base the first year of the business rate on the yield of 1989–90—and possibly, if we thought that local authorities were trying to do something that silly, we would not allow the full increase in rates to feed through.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry that, for reasons that. I have already given, I have not: been able to call every right hon. and hon. Member wishing to speak—but I shall certainly bear them in mind when we next debate this matter.

Points of Order

Mr. Chris Mullin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have informed me that you have disallowed two questions of mine about the responsibilities of certain public servants who have recently been present in the parliamentary precincts. In doing so, you cited the rule about secrecy set out on page 343 of "Erskine May". Would you be kind enough to confirm that that is so, and give the House any further information that may be helpful?

Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) for giving me notice of his point of order. As the House appreciates, when I have to apply the secrecy rule to a question or to questions, I am in difficulty if I am asked to amplify my ruling in any substantial way. Suffice it to say that, having examined the hon. Gentleman's questions with great care, and having taken advice, I am in no doubt that his questions relate to matters that are themselves secret. Therefore, they fall within the ambit of the rule set out on page 343 of "Erskine May", which states that
there are certain matters, of their nature secret, relating to the secret services and to security, and questions on these matters are not in order.
I can add nothing more.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are there really unauthorised and unaccredited MI5 spies in the Box whose names are in my hon. Friend's possession? If so, what access have they to the rest of the building?

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Many would consider it a matter of great disquiet that you have sought to rule out questions relating to the security services, which apparently means that we cannot even ask what security action has been taken for the surveillance of Members of

Parliament. I should have thought that the point at issue would be that the House ought to be immune to surveillance by the security services, as should Members of Parliament, just as the Prime Minister claims that we are immune from telephone surveillance by the security services.

Mr. Alan Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not an abuse of the House that the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Government's business managers have today taken up 47 minutes of the time allocated for a time-limited debate—although we realise that that will be embarrassing for the Government? Is it not a further abuse that we have had to hear from the Secretary of State that he got it so wrong a year ago when he guillotined the debate on the measure that he has been talking about that he will now have to amend that Act?
What can you, Mr. Speaker, do to protect us? Is there any way in which we can have the time back, or must we face the abuse of not only having a guillotine, but having the guillotine time that is supposed to be available taken up by the Government?

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman knows that I am not responsible for what statements are made. That is patently a matter that should be taken up through the usual channels. I do not disagree, however, with the right hon. Gentleman's point that on a timetable day time has been taken up. That is why I have had to restrict the number of questions on the statement.

BILL PRESENTED

SELF-GOVERNING SCHOOLS ETC. (SCOTLAND)

Mr. Secretary Rifkind, supported by Mr. Norman Lamont, Mr. Ian Lang and Mr. Michael Forsyth, presented a Bill to make provision as regards the acquisition of self-governing status by certain public schools in Scotland; to make further provision as regards education in Scotland; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 73.]

Junior Hospital Doctors (Regulation of Hours)

Mr. Terry Davis: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to regulate the hours worked by junior hospital doctors.
In recent weeks there has been great public concern about the excessive hours worked by many junior hospital doctors. In my opinion, the public are right to be concerned, and my Bill would put a limit on the hours that a junior hospital doctor can be required to work in the course of a month.
Like many other people, a junior hospital doctor is contracted to work a basic 40-hour week, from 9 am to 5 pm from Monday to Friday. As it is essential to provide cover during nights and weekends, however, he is also required to be on call at such times on a rota with other junior hospital doctors. The rota can be one in two, one in three or one in four, meaning that the doctor must be available for work on every second, third or fourth night and every second, third or fourth weekend in addition to the basic 40-hour week, without any time off in lieu of those extra hours.
If we take the Government's own target of a one-in-three rota, that means that, after working a 40-hour week, the doctor is required to be on call for one third of the remaining 128 hours in the week—that is, for 43 hours on top of the basic 40 hours—making a total of 83 hours a week. A junior hospital doctor must also cover for any other junior hospital doctor who is ill or on holiday, so the actual total can be even higher.
The position varies between specialties and hospitals, but it is not surprising that the Government's own figures show that junior hospital doctors are required to be available for work for an average of 86 hours a week. As that is only an average, the Government's figures also show that for some doctors the position is much worse than I have described. In England and Wales in September 1987 12,689 junior hospital doctors—half the total—were contracted to be available for work for 89 hours or more each week, and 2,528 of them were contracted to work or to be on call for more than 100 hours a week. That is more than 14 hours a day for seven days a week.
It is not simply a question of long hours, however. It is a matter of being on call for long periods at night and at weekends without a break. If a doctor is on call throughout the night, the night shift is added to the normal 9-to-5 working day, so that the doctor is there all day from 9 am all through the night and then through the next day until 5 pm—for 32 hours at a stretch. At weekends he will work from 9 am on Friday until 5 pm on Monday, without any guaranteed breaks for sleep or even rest at any time.
As I have said, this is not happening in all specialties and all hospitals—some doctors who are on call will still get a good night's sleep—but it does happen in some specialties and some hospitals, and it is most likely to happen in acute services, where patients need the most intensive care—and it is a scandal that it happens at all. It is against the interests not only of doctors but of patients. When a member of my family goes to hospital, I want the best possible care from the best doctor available, and I

want that doctor to be on top form. I do not want a doctor who is overtired, and I do not want a doctor who has gone without sleep for a couple of nights.
The fact is that tired doctors can kill patients, through no fault of their own. There are plenty of stories from doctors themselves about potentially lethal mistakes that they have made as a result of fatigue. The true scale of the scandal, however, was established by a confidential inquiry in three regions of the country in 1986. The inquiry was into the deaths of people who had had operations during the 30 days before they died.
The inquiry found 28 cases of deaths that could have been avoided, and in which fatigue was one of the factors. If those figures for three regions are extended to the whole country, the number of people who died and need not have died becomes 140—and that is only the number who have died unnecessarily after operations. We shall never know how many people have died as a result of a wrong diagnosis, or the wrong treatment from an exhausted doctor, without ever having reached the operating theatre.
The scandal was first brought to the attention of the House by the Select Committee on Social Services in 1981. At that time, junior hospital doctors were contracted to work for an average of 89 hours a week. The Government's response was to issue a circular and set up some working parties. During the next few years they issued two more circulars. When they came to take stock—after four years and three circulars—they found that the average had fallen by the pathetic figure of three hours a week, from 89 hours to 86. At this rate we shall be into the next century before we reach the Government's target of 72 hours a week.
What has been the Government's response to the latest figures? They announced what Ministers described as a "programme of action": they issued another circular, set up some more working parties and asked for more reports before the end of the year. With respect, I do not call that a programme of action; I call it a programme of procrastination. The House has been waiting for eight years for the Department of Health, the consultants, the hospital administrators and the health authorities to get their act together. We have waited long enough. It is time for Parliament to do something about the problem, and that is the aim of the Bill.
Clause 1 would put a limit of 72 hours a week on the hours for which a junior hospital doctor can be required to be available for work, averaged over a month. It would allow considerable flexibility in the arrangements to be made. It would also give plenty of notice to hospital administrators, as it would not come into effect until 1992. But our junior hospital doctors would still be required to be available to work more hours each week than their colleagues in the other member countries of the European Community, where the average is less than 60 hours a week. Clause 2 would therefore enable the Secretary of State to make further reductions to 60 hours a week at his discretion. Clause 3 would allow variations in cases of major emergencies, disasters and accidents, and clause 4 would enable the Secretary of State to approve variations and exceptions for particular specialties in particular hospitals if he were convinced that they were necessary.
The Bill is very reasonable and modest. It has been drafted by my trade union, Manufacturing Science Finance, which includes the Medical Practitioners Union,


which should be congratulated on its campaign to bring the scandal to the attention of the public. It has also been endorsed by the British Medical Association.
The Bill is in the interests of patients and doctors. It is identical to the Bill which has been introduced by my noble Friend Lord Rea in another place, where it received an unopposed Second Reading. I hope that the House will give me permission to introduce it here today.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Terry Davis, Ms. Hilary Armstrong, Mr. Frank Cook, Mr. Jim Cousins, Mr. Derek Fatchett, Mr. Martin Flannery, Mr. Doug Hoyle, Dr. John Marek, Dr. Lewis Moonie, Ms. Jo Richardson, Mr. Chris Smith and Mr. Robert N. Wareing.

JUNIOR HOSPITAL DOCTORS (REGULATION OF HOURS)

Mr. Terry Davis accordingly presented a Bill to regulate the hours worked by junior hospital doctors: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday next and to be printed. [Bill 75.]

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would not have dreamt of raising this matter before my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) introduced his valuable Bill, which I strongly support. However, used it not to be the case that, on days when the guillotine was in operation, there were neither statements, unless they were designated by Mr. Speaker, nor ten-minute Bills. Has there been a change in the rules?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I was present when Mr. Speaker dealt with the point of order about statements being made on guillotine days; I am advised that the rule has been relaxed in respect of ten-minute Bills on guillotine days.

OFFICIAL SECRETS BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)

Ordered,
That the Report [14th February] from the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr. Wakeham.]
Report considered accordingly.
Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in their resolution, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) and agreed to.

Following is the report of the Business Committee:
That—
(a) the Bill shall be considered in Committee in the order shown in the Table set out below;
(b) the two days allotted under the Order [13th February] to the remaining proceedings in Committee shall be allotted in the manner shown in that Table, and, subject to the provisions of that Order, each part of the proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column of that Table.

TABLE


Allotted day
Proceedings
Time for conclusion of proceedings


First day
Clause No. 1 (remaining proceedings)
6.00 pm



Clause No. 2
9.00 pm



Clause No. 3
Midnight


Second day
Clauses No. 7 and 4
7.15 pm



Clause No. 5
10.00 pm



Remaining proceedings
Midnight

Orders of the Day — Official Secrets Bill

[IST ALLOTED DAY]

Considered in Committee [Progress, 2 February]

[MR. HAROLD WALKER in the Chair.]

Mr. Julian Amery: On a point of order, Mr. Walker. I understand that you have decided not to select new clause 11. I have no intention of challenging your decision on that, but I seek your guidance on a point which involves the House of Commons and which may be of constitutional importance.
During the Second Reading debate on the Official Secrets Bill, my hon. Friend the Minister of State gave me certain detailed assurances relating to the publication of memoirs by members or former members of the secret service. It later transpired that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State sent me a letter which appeared to repudiate those assurances. I shall not go into detail, but I do not think that my right hon. Friend would wish to repudiate assurances given in detail over about half a column of the Official Report without some explanation.
The purpose of new clause 11 was to discover whether he wished to repudiate or modify the assurance which my hon. Friend has given. If the new clause is not selected, I do not see how he will get the opportunity to explain to the House what has happened. I do not think that anyone in the Committee would accept that a single letter to an individual Member of Parliament would suffice as a repudiation of those assurances.
I seek your guidance, Mr. Walker, as to what should be done. If the new clause is not selected, may I have an assurance that it will be selected on Report? How is this matter to be cleared up? A long list of assurances was given in good faith, covering half a column in Hansard, and an apparent repudiation was contained only in a letter to me and not to the House and has not been made in any statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. How do we get out of that difficulty if we do not debate the new clause in Committee or on Report? I should be perfectly happy if you were to say that the new clause will be considered on Report.

The Minister of State, Home Department (Mr. John Patten): Further to that point of order, Mr. Walker. I have listened with great care to my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery). The issue was referred to not only during the debate on the guillotine motion a night or so ago but in Committee, when new clause 6 standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) was debated.

Mr. Michael Foot: Further to that point of order, Mr. Walker. I am rather surprised by the Minister's intervention, because he seemed to be discussing the merits of the matter, but we are discussing whether new clause 11 should be selected for discussion. Anyone who listened to the debates over the past few days would be most astonished that we are not to have the chance to debate this subject on the basis of the new clause that the right hon. Gentleman has tabled.
I am astonished that new clause 11 was not selected, because it raises a particular matter of special importance which was raised during previous debates. Whatever anyone thought about the argument, we went away from that discussion fully imagining that there would be a chance to debate the issue. We certainly did not imagine that a Government Front Bench spokesman would say that there was any good or satisfactory reason for not having such a debate. Therefore, if that new clause, or something that achieves the same result, is not selected for discussion now, I seek your assurance that there will be immediate discussions, as is the normal process, so that by tomorrow at least we shall have an absolute assurance that there will be the possibility of a discussion on new clause 11.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Walker. May I draw to your attention a parallel problem? Questions were raised in Committee about the relationship between solicitors and their clients, and it became clear that the assurances given by the Government were inaccurate in every particular. As the discussion continued, the Minister of State intervened—I think it was from a sedentary position, but we all heard him—to say that a chance for clarification would be provided.
I make no complaint, but I understand that the amendment on that subject is not to be discussed in Committee. Were we not subject to a guillotine we would press all these matters on clause stand part, but the guillotine makes that impossible. I wish to record my belief that a matter as important as that raised by the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) will be ignored unless special consideration is given on Report.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: Further to that point of order, Mr. Walker. We are in some difficulty when undertakings and interpretations are given by my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Floor of the House and subsequently repudiated. That denies us the possibility of an authoritative statement. You will recall that my hon. Friend the Minister of State gave clear assurances to my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) which were subsequently repudiated. We have a series of such instances within the timetable. It is difficult to identify things that my right hon. and hon. Friends have said as the basis of the Bill, and the timetable constricts that.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken (Thariet, South): Further to that point of order, Mr. Walker. In support of the point of order made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), I would emphasise that the present state of affairs is unsatisfactory in the eyes of those of us who wish to explore this matter further, and that it should be so in the eyes of the Government. The uncomfortable fact must be faced that, if matters are left to stand in their current unsatisfactory position—and there is not a proper correction of the record in Hansard—it will regrettably leave my hon. Friend the Minister of State perilously vulnerable to a serious charge of having misled the House.
It is not satisfactory for assurances to be given in private correspondence between my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion. We have now had a reversal of those assurances in correspondence and surely the Government


and the Minister of State would wish to acquit themselves completely of any charge of having double-crossed the House and would instead make it absolutely clear that there is a repudiation and that it is on the record as part of our proceedings.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Harold Walker): It is difficult for me to see how these points arise on matters of my selection or non-selection of amendments or new clauses which have been tabled.

Mr. Aitken: I shall explain why. I understand that part of the Chair's thinking in deciding not to select this new clause may have been because it was to some extent covered in the debate on amendment No. 71. If that is true, I submit—

The Chairman: Order. We cannot have a debate about what may or may not have been the considerations which I took into account in determining my selection. The hon. Gentleman and certainly right hon. and hon. Members will know that I am required not to give reasons for my selection or non-selection of amendments.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Walker. Is not the basic trouble that there is a remarkable absence of good will from Home Office Ministers? There is a fundamental problem. We are in Committee and the occupant of the Chair is likely to jump down my throat. Surely in Committee, when those who have been here throughout and who have taken the most interest in the Bill on the Back Benches of both sides of the House are almost uniformly unhappy, is it not reasonable that there should be some explanation, because a similar thing has happened over the serious degree of harm—

The Chairman: Order. I recognise that the hon. Gentleman is unhappy, but these are not matters for the Chair. Those grievances lie not with the Chair but with Ministers. I listened, as we all did, to the earlier exchanges about the amount of guillotine time that had been taken by questions on the statement. It appears that we are now resurrecting the very matters about which complaints were made.

Mr. Foot: On a point of order, Mr. Walker. My previous point of order was a matter directly addressed to you and not to the Ministers, and my point of order now is addressed directly to you. I have heard this happen many times in Committee stages of Bills. We have seen the selection you have made and we have seen what we believe is a grave deficiency in that selection. We are not asking you to give the reasons, because that is understandable, but on behalf of many right hon. and hon. Members I am asking that you should reconsider the matter and see whether we should not tomorrow have a proper opportunity to discuss this matter. I believe that would be the satisfactory way of doing it. It is certainly a matter of procedure that I am entitled to raise with you.

The Chairman: Perhaps I should try to give the Committee a considered view from the Chair. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that, if I were persuaded that I had grounds for reconsideration, I do not believe that it would help him and other right hon. and hon. Members, because I believe that the very matters which he seeks to discuss could not be raised until the very end. It is highly likely

that, given the circumstances and timing of the guillotine, we should be able to exhaust all the proposals on the Notice Paper.
The Ministers and others on the Government Front Bench will have heard the exchanges. It is not for me to anticipate or pre-empt what Mr. Speaker may select for debate on Report, but doubtless these matters will be considered and there may be an appropriate opportunity when the points can be dealt with in a manner which will be satisfactory to hon. Members.
In the light of my comments, perhaps we can make some progress.

Mr. Amery: Do I understand from what you have just said to the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), Mr. Walker, that in your view this could and perhaps should be raised on Report, if not before? Otherwise, if the clause is not to be called, how do we extract from Home Office Ministers whether they have repudiated, or whether they want to modify, the assurances given by my hon. Friend the Minister, which occupied half a column of Hansard? If it cannot be done in this clause, what other way of doing it would you recommend to the Committee?

The Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman is showing the accumulated Housecraft of the many years that he has been here. I have been here a few years, too, and I shall not be lured into the trap which I believe he is setting for me. However, if it is any encouragement, I shall ensure that Mr. Speaker is made fully aware of these exchanges. I am sure that Mr. Speaker will share my anxiety that, so far as is possible within the time parameters that have been set—both at this and later stages of the Bill—there should be an opportunity for the House to satisfy itself on matters which are clearly of considerable importance.
I have noted that Ministers, too, are responding sympathetically and I hope understandingly—[Interruption.] I understood their heads to be going up and down rather than from side to side. I think that up and down is more encouraging than from side to side.

Mr. Hattersley: You anticipated, Mr. Walker, the nature of my point of order. I was about to say that all these matters are in the hands of the Government. The Government have been unhelpful about many matters concerning the procedure of this Bill. All that the Home Secretary has to do is to indicate his intention to do his best to make these debates possible, and then we can proceed.

Mr. John Gorst: Further to the point of order of my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), Mr. Walker. I wonder whether your reply means that your customary and entirely proper exorcism of the martinet in matters of relevance means that you were indicating that you would be less of a martinet in terms of what is not relevant to the clauses which we are discussing.

The Chairman: If the hon. Gentleman were to interpret my remarks as suggesting that I would convey to Mr. Speaker the anxiety that has been expressed on this occasion and the hope that, before the Bill completes its


proceedings in this House, there will be an opportunity for these matters to be cleared up on the Floor of the House, he is interpreting me correctly. I hope that that is helpful.

Sir Ian Gilmour: On a point of order, Mr. Walker. As one would expect, you are seeking to help the Committee, for which we are most grateful. Obviously I would not question your reasons for not selecting the new clause of my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), because I would find the reasons unfathomable anyway. When a serious point has been raised by a right hon. Member who is experienced in these matters, and contradictory things have been said, it is extraordinary that the Government should not seek to clear those matters up straight away. I honestly do not believe that it is good enough to wait until Report. I should have thought that the Government would wish to satisfy the anxieties of my right hon. Friend straight away.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): On a point of order, Mr. Walker, and responding to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said. This matter was discussed on the initiative of my right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion on Second Reading, then in Committee on a new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) to which my hon. Friend the Minister of State responded. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion, through no fault of his own, was not there. It was raised, too, by my right hon. Friend on the timetable motion, and I replied to him then.
However, we are not in any way party to the decisions of the Chair on the selection of amendments. On behalf of the Government, I am happy that the matter should be aired again, if that is the view of my right hon. Friend, when it is procedurally in order to do so. If that is on Report, as you have suggested, Mr. Walker, we will fall in with whatever arrangements suit the Committee.

Mr. Aitken: Further to that point of order, Mr. Walker. I should like to respond to the comment made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Whatever may or may not have been said during the first day of the Committee stage in response to the amendments moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) is largely irrelevant. If I have the date right, I believe that those exchanges took place on 26 January; but the correspondence from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary repudiating the comments of the Minister of State was dated 31 January. Therefore, it was several days later, and the repudiation could not have been debated.

The Chairman: We are straying from points of order into the substance of the matter. I hope that the hon. Member will find the earlier exchanges helpful in respect of that matter and that he will accept that there may be the opportunity for debate which right hon. and hon. Members have sought.

Ms. Diane Abbott: Further to that point of order, Mr. Walker. I would appreciate your guidance. I understood that the Committee stage was supposed to provide an opportunity to study legislation in detail. I am not privy to correspondence between the right hon. Member for

Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) and the Minister. However, I was in the Chamber when the Minister commented at length and gave assurances about the arrangements for allowing ex-members of the security services to publish their memoirs. I understand from the points of order that the Secretary of State has repudiated those assurances. At the time—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Lady is repeating the error committed by the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken). She is discussing the substance of the matter rather than the question whether an amendment or a new clause should be selected and debated.

Clause 1

SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE

Mr. Richard Shepherd: On a point of order, Mr. Walker. I wish to seek your guidance on amendment No. 14, which was discussed in a previous debate. It deals with the absolute nature of the lifelong duty of confidentiality. Is this the stage at which it is in order to call a Division on that amendment?

The Chairman: If the hon. Gentleman were to press for a Division, it would be difficult for me to refuse. However, I hope that he will have regard to the limitations imposed by the guillotine and the anxiety of the Committee to make progress. I hope that we can move to amendment No. 3.

Mr. Shepherd: I think that I should press the amendment to a Division, because it concerns a fundamental element of the Bill.

Amendment proposed; No. 14 in page 1, line 9, leave out 'discloses' and insert

'makes a damaging disclosure of'—[Mr. Richard Shepherd.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 175, Noes 275.

Division No. 94]
[4.52 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Coleman, Donald


Aitken, Jonathan
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Allason, Rupert
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Allen, Graham
Corbett, Robin


Alton, David
Cousins, Jim


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Crowther, Stan


Anderson, Donald
Cummings, John


Armstrong, Hilary
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cunningham, Dr John


Ashton, Joe
Dalyell, Tarn


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Darling, Alistair


Barron, Kevin
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Battle, John
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge HI)


Beckett, Margaret
Dewar, Donald


Beith, A. J.
Dixon, Don


Bell, Stuart
Dobson, Frank


Bermingham, Gerald
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Blair, Tony
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Blunkett, David
Eadie, Alexander


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Eastham, Ken


Buchan, Norman
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Buckley, George J.
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Budgen, Nicholas
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Caborn, Richard
Fearn, Ronald


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Fisher, Mark


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Flannery, Martin


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Flynn, Paul


Clay, Bob
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Foster, Derek


Cohen, Harry
Foulkes, George






Fraser, John
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Fyfe, Maria
Morgan, Rhodri


Galbraith, Sam
Mullin, Chris


Galloway, George
Nellist, Dave


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Godman, Dr Norman A.
O'Neill, Martin


Golding, Mrs Llin
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Gordon, Mildred
Parry, Robert


Gorst, John
Patchett, Terry


Gould, Bryan
Pendry, Tom


Graham, Thomas
Pike, Peter L.


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Prescott, John


Haynes, Frank
Radice, Giles


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Randall, Stuart


Heffer, Eric S.
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Hinchliffe, David
Reid, Dr John


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Richardson, Jo


Hood, Jimmy
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Howells, Geraint
Robinson, Geoffrey


Hoyle, Doug
Rooker, Jeff


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Ruddock, Joan


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Salmond, Alex


Ingram, Adam
Sheerman, Barry


Janner, Greville
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Kennedy, Charles
Short, Clare


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Skinner, Dennis


Lamond, James
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Leadbitter, Ted
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Leighton, Ron
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Snape, Peter


Lewis, Terry
Soley, Clive


Litherland, Robert
Spearing, Nigel


Livsey, Richard
Steel, Rt Hon David


Loyden, Eddie
Strang, Gavin


McAllion, John
Straw, Jack


McAvoy, Thomas
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McCartney, Ian
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Macdonald, Calum A.
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


McFall, John
Turner, Dennis


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Vaz, Keith


McKelvey, William
Wall, Pat


McLeish, Henry
Wareing, Robert N.


Maclennan, Robert
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


McNamara, Kevin
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


McTaggart, Bob
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


McWilliam, John
Wilson, Brian


Madden, Max
Winnick, David


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Worthington, Tony


Martlew, Eric
Wray, Jimmy


Maxton, John



Meacher, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Meale, Alan
Mrs. Alice Mahon and


Michael, Alun
Mr. Harry Barnes.


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)



NOES



Alexander, Richard
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Amos, Alan
Body, Sir Richard


Arbuthnot, James
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Aspinwall, Jack
Boswell, Tim


Atkins, Robert
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)


Atkinson, David
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Bowis, John


Baldry, Tony
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Batiste, Spencer
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Brazier, Julian


Beggs, Roy
Bright, Graham


Bellingham, Henry
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Bendall, Vivian
Browne, John (Winchester)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Benyon, W.
Buck, Sir Antony


Bevan, David Gilroy
Burns, Simon


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Burt, Alistair





Butler, Chris
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Butterfill, John
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Carrington, Matthew
Irvine, Michael


Carttiss, Michael
Irving, Charles


Cash, William
Jack, Michael


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Jackson, Robert


Chapman, Sydney
Janman, Tim


Churchill, Mr
Jessel, Toby


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Key, Robert


Colvin, Michael
Kilfedder, James


Conway, Derek
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Knapman, Roger


Cope, Rt Hon John
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Couchman, James
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Cran, James
Knox, David


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Curry, David
Latham, Michael


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Lawrence, Ivan


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Day, Stephen
Lee, John (Pendle)


Devlin, Tim
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Dicks, Terry
Lightbown, David


Dunn, Bob
Li 1 ley, Peter


Durant, Tony
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Eggar, Tim
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Evennett, David
Lord, Michael


Fallon, Michael
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Favell, Tony
McCrindle, Robert


Fenner, Dame Peggy
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Maclean, David


Fishburn, John Dudley
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fookes, Dame Janet
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Forman, Nigel
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Madel, David


Forth, Eric
Major, Rt Hon John


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Malins, Humfrey


Fox, Sir Marcus
Maples, John


Franks, Cecil
Marland, Paul


Freeman, Roger
Marlow, Tony


French, Douglas
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Fry, Peter
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gale, Roger
Mates, Michael


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Maude, Hon Francis


Goodlad, Alastair
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Gow, Ian
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Miller, Sir Hal


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mitchell, Sir David


Gregory, Conal
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Monro, Sir Hector


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Moss, Malcolm


Grylls, Michael
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Mudd, David


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Nicholls, Patrick


Hanley, Jeremy
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hannam, John
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Norris, Steve


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hayes, Jerry
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hayward, Robert
Page, Richard


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Paice, James


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Patnick, Irvine


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Pawsey, James


Holt, Richard
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hordern, Sir Peter
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Howard, Michael
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Portillo, Michael


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Powell, William (Corby)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Price, Sir David


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Raffan, Keith


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Rathbone, Tim






Redwood, John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Renton, Tim
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Rhodes James, Robert
Temple-Morris, Peter


Riddick, Graham
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Thorne, Neil


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Thornton, Malcolm


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Thurnham, Peter


Rost, Peter
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rowe, Andrew
Tredinnick, David


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Trippier, David


Ryder, Richard
Trotter, Neville


Sackville, Hon Tom
Twinn, Dr Ian


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Sayeed, Jonathan
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Walden, George


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Shelton, Sir William
Waller, Gary


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shersby, Michael
Warren, Kenneth


Sims, Roger
Watts, John


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wells, Bowen


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wheeler, John


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Whitney, Ray


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Widdecombe, Ann


Speller, Tony
Wiggin, Jerry


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Wilkinson, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wilshire, David


Squire, Robin
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stanbrook, Ivor
Winterton, Nicholas


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wolfson, Mark


Stern, Michael
Wood, Timothy


Stevens, Lewis
Woodcock, Mike


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Yeo, Tim


Stokes, Sir John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stradling Thomas, Sir John



Sumberg, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Summerson, Hugo
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Robin Corbett: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 14, leave out subsection (2).
Not content with silencing members of the security and intelligence services, any person the Minister chooses to identify and Government contractors, the Government now want to find ways to send the jokers and jesters to prison. That, in part, is what the subsection means. We have come close to the heart of never-never land if the Government can seriously propose that a lowly notified person should be prosecuted, and perhaps gaoled, for a disclosure that is not merely unsubstantiated or untrue but a total fabrication. It is no good the Minister saying, as I suspect that he might, that the Government would never be so daft as to go ahead on that basis—it would certainly be a rum Attorney-General who so advised—because, if that is so, why is this silly and dangerous provision in the Bill?
This great reforming Bill, as the Home Office press release describes it, contains a subsection which achieves something that even section 2 of the Official Secrets Act did not—it invents an offence. Under the present Act, the offence is committed only if an unauthorised disclosure of real information takes place. The Bill widens that to include any information. Under the Government's proposals, an officer could be prosecuted and imprisoned, for example, for falsely alleging that some hon. Members' telephones were being tapped for party political reasons. We know that that has never happened in the past—certainly not in relation to the lawful activities of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament—but it could happen. Pc Plod would arrive, arrest the officer and a man

wearing a wig could send him to prison. The Government could say that there was not a word of truth in the allegation. The allegation might not even be mentioned in open court because the hearing could be held in camera. We are talking about the absolute offence.
I imagine that other hon. Members have met people, usually men, who claim in a roundabout way to have been members of the SAS. I do not doubt for a moment that anyone casually mentioning that to a stranger in a pub would be unlikely to be telling the truth. Let us envisage the scene in the Swan public house in Erdington high street shortly after 11 o'clock on Friday night. It is likely that I shall be in there enjoying a pint after a busy advice bureau—[HON. MEMBERS: "After hours?"] We have 20 minutes Turner time. When I am in the pub people come up and speak to me, as no doubt happens to other hon. Members in similar circumstances. Some people—this may be an unusual experience for Conservative Members—have been known to offer to buy me drinks.
Let us suppose that one man asks for a quiet word with me and makes an allegation concerning the security and intelligence services. He tries to give me the impression that he is, or has been, an officer or a notified person. He is full of sad pride that the Home Secretary thought him important enough to be notified. The man tells me that all special branch officers in Birmingham and the west midlands have been called by MI5 to a meeting in London next week because there is a panic on about terrorism. I listen, as I must, and he tells me that he expects me to take some unspecified action. It turns out that the man is indeed a notified person. We shall not know whether it would be safe for me to tell someone what he told me until the Leader of the House has spoken tomorrow.
Under the clause, that man could be charged and gaoled when, all the while, he was having me on and there was not an ounce of truth in what he told me about the meeting of special branch officers. He was doing it simply to try to impress me. He was just a bar room poseur.

Mr. Tony Banks: There are a few of those around here.

Mr. Corbett: What about the real risk of entrapment?

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Will my hon. Friend take the matter further and consider a serious point which I raised recently? If my hon. Friend returned to Parliament because he thought it his duty to raise the matter on the Floor of the House, he would, as I understand Mr. Speaker's recent ruling, be privileged. Would we then have the farcical situation where the bar room poseur would be prosecutable in respect of a non-offence over a non-event? The matter could not be mentioned in court because it might be contrary to the Official Secrets Act, so the case would be held in camera, but it could be mentioned in this place and, no doubt, reported in the United States, Ireland, Europe and everywhere else.

Mr. Corbett: My hon. Friend is right to remind the Committee of the ruling on privilege which was given on Monday evening. The circumstances which my hon. Friend set out are correct, and what he describes could follow from the Bill.

Mr. Gorst: I fear that the hon. Gentleman is not right in leaving it as far as he has taken it. After all, poetic licence might be taken. A notified person might, for


example, be called Graham Greene, Alexander Pope or George Orwell and he might communicate within the terms of the Bill, making
a disclosure of…information…intended to be taken by those to whom it is addressed as being such a disclosure.
He might use the sort of coded communication often inherent in the works of the people whom I mentioned
—for example, "Animal Farm" and "Gulliver's Travels". Surely he will have to go to prison as a result of that sort of communication.

Mr. Corbett: I shall be coming to that point because it concerns an issue to which the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) referred, but first I wish to complete the point about entrapment.
Let us suppose that a notified person was suspected by the security services of making the odd disclosure and this was of concern to the security services. What would be the position if a security officer, unknown to the notified person, struck up casual conversation with him in a pub for the deliberate purpose of encouraging him to make a disclosure? If it happened, it doubtless would be defended on the grounds of the needs of security, but perhaps the Minister will confirm that it would constitute entrapment nonetheless.
As some of us know, drink tends to loosen some tongues, and with the encouragement of an experienced and friendly stranger it is not far-fetched to imagine that sort of entrapment being attempted or actually occurring. The notified person who has been entrapped then goes home and says to his wife, "I met a nice man in the pub—who was ever so interested in what I did for a living—you must meet him," but before that can happen, the law will arrive and a prosecution may be put in train.
Can the Minister assure the House that in circumstances where entrapment is used in the manner that I have described, no prosecution could follow? I do not think that he can safely give that undertaking in view of the way in which the provision is drafted.

Mr. Bermingham: As entrapment is not a defence known to English law, we shall be laying ourselves wide open to the possibility of people being enticed into criminal offences on bogus and spurious points without a defence being available to them. This makes the position far worse than currently exists.

Mr. Corbett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend—perhaps I should refer to him as my hon. and learned Friend—for his legal advice, the more so because he is not charging for it at the moment. I should have been more careful in my choice of words. The Minister will appreciate the point that I was making.
What would be the position of a person such as I who, before being allowed to do national service, was required to sign the Official Secrets Act?

Mr. Tony Baldry: The hon. Gentleman does not look old enough to have done national service.

Mr. Corbett: Sadly, I am.
I understand that once signed, the piece of paper cannot be unsigned—one cannot pull the signature back. From the earlier part of the Bill, we know that a signature of that

sort will follow me into and beyond the grave. Let us suppose—following the example of the hon. Member for Torbay—I wrote a fictional book in which I purported to make
a disclosure…intended to be taken by those to whom it is addressed as being such a disclosure.
There would be no point in writing it in any other way if one was writing that sort of book. Suppose that I unwittingly and accidentally disclosed something which was true, and to that extent caused some perceived harm or potential harm to the security interests of the United Kingdom, although I could not have known it. Could I, or any other person in those circumstances, be prosecuted? Never mind what possible defence there might be, will the Minister say whether such an unwitting accident could lead to prosecution? It would seem from the way in which the clause is drafted that that could be the case.
I suspect that the Minister will say that in the three circumstances that I have outlined there would be no prosecution. Doubtless he will say that I have overlooked the test of harm, but there is no test of harm in the clause, even though the Minister's interview with The Times, and perhaps on other occasions when he listed the famous nine hurdles, he gave the impression, no doubt accidentally, that in every case there would be a harm test.

Mr. John Patten: There is a distinction.

Mr. Corbett: If the Minister wishes to make a fine distinction between journalists and writers, I suppose that he is entitled to do so, but for these purposes it is a difference without any meaning.

Mr. Patten: The distinction that I was making, albeit from a sedentary position, was between members of the service or notified persons on the one hand and journalists and writers on the other.

Mr. Corbett: I do not know what has got the Minister so excited about journalists. I was speaking basically about notified persons and just threw in the example of writers. Let us suppose that the author of the fictional book which makes the unwitting disclosure is a notified person. What would be the position in those circumstances?
What is so obnoxious about the Government wheeling in this new offence—an offence which is not in the original Act—is that they seem unwilling on the face of the Bill to distinguish between the idle barroom boast and the release of information which causes or could cause serious injury to the public interest. The Minister need not tell me that that is not so, because, on my reading, that is what is in the Bill. It is the Bill with which we are concerned, not with remarks from the Minister which will find their way into Hansard.
In reality, the catch-all provisions of the Act that the Bill seeks to replace are being extended. I hope that on reflection the Government will admit that this is potentially stupid, time-wasting and money-wasting, and that they will agree to remove the provision and return to the offence involving disclosure of information which would cause serious injury.

Mr. Baldry: I am sure that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) does not mean this, but, if his amendment were passed, we would introduce a liar's charter into the legislation. It would mean that a defence counsel in the Crown court might say, "Your honour, my client accepts that he is a security and


intelligence officer as defined by section 1 of the Act. He accepts that he is a notified person. He accepts that he has written a book upon his experiences as a security and intelligence officer. But everything in that book is a lie. Therefore, he does not come within the provisions of the Act."
Let us relate that defence to the experiences which we have had with Peter Wright and others. When we had the debate a couple of weeks ago on the Right of Reply Bill, I think the whole House agreed that often the media and the press are not capable of distinguishing between fact and fiction, fantasy and reality. A security officer who purports to write about his experiences, whether they are fact or fiction, can do just as much damage.
If one makes a judgment that a limited number of people-security and intelligence officers—should have a ring fence, and if they are allowed to publish information about their work and then say in court, "I have a defence against prosecution because what I have written is not true; it is a lie," it makes the position worse for the Crown. The Crown then has to prove to the jury, so that the jury is sure, that the allegations which the man is making are true. It further underlines the damage that that man might be doing by his revelations.
The hon. Member for Erdington seems to think that there is some jest in the prosecution having to justify to the jury beyond peradventure that what the intelligence officer disclosed was true. That underlines the harm that may be done to the community by the revelations. If one takes a decision, as the Committee has done, that security and intelligence officers should not disclose information coming from their work, one has to see that through. Therefore, the amendment, if passed, would make the clause a liar's charter. I am sure the hon. Gentleman did not mean it to he so, but that would be its effect.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: If there was any doubt about the sense of the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), it was removed by the speech that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry). The idea that people should be sent to prison for two years for lying does not normally commend itself to the House of Commons, which is concerned about the rule of law.

Mr. Baldry: I did not say that. What I said was that people should not be given a defence that they should not be sent to prison simply because they were lying throughout.

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman is even more confused than I thought he was.
The subsection does not provide a defence; it creates an offence. It is a bizarre suggestion that it should be possible to impose a lifelong duty of confidentiality on people which makes it impossible for them to say something which is not true. It is a farcical proposal and the hon. Gentleman has not made it any less farcical by his intervention. I hope the Minister can clarify what the Government think they have in mind.

Mr. David Winnick: rose—

The Chairman: I think the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) had concluded his speech. Mr. Gorst.

Mr. Gorst: I want my hon. Friend, when he replies, to give me an assurance that no work of fiction, no work of allegory, no poem and no satire, however much based on truth, will be caught by the provisions of the paragraph under discussion.

Mr. Rupert Allason: I am very concerned. First, I have to declare an interest as an author. Until this year I have always written non-fiction. I propose to write some fiction this year. This is not a commercial; I want to ask the Minister a serious question.
I shall give him three examples of respected intelligence officers who had long careers, two of them in the secret intelligence service and one in MI5. John Le Carré, or David Cornwell, and Kenneth Benton were in the secret intelligence service for a number of years. They retired from that occupation and neither of them has ever written any non-fiction. But it is surely the case that part of their attraction is that they are perceived to be speaking from the inside. Is it not the case that the subsection would directly affect them, particularly as their publishers are adept at pushing that kind of literature by saying that although it is fiction, it is also "faction"—fact dressed up as fiction?
Perhaps I may give the Minister another example from the security service. John Bingham, who had a long and distinguished career in the security service and who died last year, might well have been caught, I suspect, by this provision. It is ludicrous to legislate for people writing fiction.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: I had intended to play no part in the details of the Bill. It was not until the matter was guillotined that I felt that my hon. Friends who were taking a proper interest in it needed a little help.
I cannot understand the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry). If we take the Home Secretary's proper view that this is a matter for a jury, one of the things that juries are required to do is to decide whether people are telling lies. If, on the other hand, the Government's position is that it would be embarrassing for the prosecution to have to prove its case, let them say that, and not pretend that the proper discipline of persuading a jury is the one thing that informs them. I fear that when my hon. Friends encouraged my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury to make that intervention, they harmed themselves greatly.

Mr. Bermingham: I do not intend to say much. I raised a point in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett). I am extremely concerned that we run the risk of encouraging entrapment, because, as I said earlier, that is unknown as a defence in criminal law. Therefore, a man will be denied a defence simply because he has been induced into committing an offence, even though he may not have known at the time that he was committing an offence because he was becoming the recipient of something which he should not know. He in turn may pass the information on. Let us face it; very few people wander the land with a copy of Archbold and a full index to the criminal law under their arm. This is an intensely sensitive point.
I am further concerned—I raised the point on Monday night in an intervention, and I raised it earlier today, and if the hon. Member for Banbury would listen he might receive a little bit of education—[Interruption.] I say that


with great care because it is so easy to be glib about the subject. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Solihull wish to intervene as a Whip?

Mr. John M. Taylor: No.

Mr. Bermingham: If the hon. Gentleman does not wish to intervene, would he kindly desist from making sedentary comments?
As I was saying—I used this as an example, when I intervened in my hon. Friend's speech, on the question of privilege—we are really getting ourselves into a terrible tangle simply because the Government will not understand that there is a possible defence, which gets us out of every conceivable problem, where disclosure becomes almost the duty of somebody, and then the courts can decide on the question of public duty. That takes us out of all these problems of entrapment, because, of course, such a defence could be raised where somebody had been entrapped. It could be argued very simply—and the jury could be left to decide at the end of the day—that the person had been led unwittingly into an offence.
Then, of course, privilege appears. I worry greatly about the situation that will exist when this Bill passes into law, because the Government have shown, by their attitude towards it, that they intend to have their way—as they did with the Security Service Bill, when they did not intend to allow any amendments.

Mr. Hurd: indicated dissent.

Mr. Bermingham: The Home Secretary shakes his head. That is perhaps the first piece of good news we have had during the Committee stage of this Bill. If the Home Secretary is prepared to listen to reasoned arguments and to accept amendments, perhaps we will make speedy progress. Perhaps he could indicate in what areas he is prepared to accept amendments.
What worries me is the situation in which someone is told something as a Member of Parliament, and repeats it on the Floor of the House—where, I have been assured, we have absolute privilege. I have to wait until tomorrow night to hear whether the Government seek to interfere with that privilege. I trust not. Information given on the Floor of the House can be broadcast by the media. Of course, it can be broadcast abroad, and even if something had been broadcast all over Europe and the United States it could be an offence to repeat it here.
On the question of entrapment, if only we had the defence that was discussed at great length—I do not intend to repeat all the arguments that have already been used during the Committee Stage—then we would not have any of these problems. It is a simple issue but a very, very important one.

Mr. John Patten: It might be of help to the Committee if I were to outline briefly the Government's attitude to these amendments and then try to answer specific questions that my hon. Friends, and most of all, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) asked. We all know now where to go for a bit of advice at closing time on a Friday night in Erdington high street.
I should like to draw to the attention of the hon. Gentleman, and, indeed, of the whole Committee, what I

think is the key word in subsection (2)—"intended". That is of critical importance in the arguments about this group of amendments.
First of all, let me deal with the Government's attitude overall. The amendments would provide a loophole—it is a conscious decision to block that loophole, as the White Paper said—through which members of the security services and those working with the security services could damage the work of the services. As my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) said, it would mean that the most damaging of disclosures might escape prosecution altogether, since it might not be in the public interest to compound the damage they had caused by confirming in court that the information disclosed was actually true.
Under this offence a member of the security or intelligence services—

Mr. Budgen: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Patten: If I may just expand the argument, then of course I will give way.
Under this offence, a member of the security or intelligence services or a notified person is not liable unless the prosecution can show that he has held out the information he has revealed as being true, or that he has intended that it should be taken as true. We see absolutely no reason why he should then be able to escape the consequences of his damaging action by telling the court that the information is in fact false, and actually challenging the prosecution to prove that it is true. In those circumstances the prosecution would not be able to do so without perhaps making further harmful disclosures about security or intelligence, and, as a result, it would not be possible to pursue the issue.
I now give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Budgen: It is an inevitable consequence of a prosecution that the jury will have to know the facts. Once the Government have decided to have this sort of legislation, they will not be able to go on saying "Well, it is too damaging to prove it." Surely they would be adequately safeguarded by having the proceedings in camera and perhaps by means of some surveillance—that may not be the right word—of the jury. But it is not good enough to say, "Well, we really do not think that we can possibly parade these arguments before a jury."

Mr. Patten: I rest my case on what I have just said to the Committee, despite what my hon. Friend has said.
In any case, the disclosure of false information by a member of the security and intelligence services, or a person notified because of the nature of his or her work with the services, can actually be as damaging as the disclosure of true information under certain circumstances, particularly since the Government cannot—

Mr. Richard Shepherd: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Allason: rose—

Mr. Patten: May I finish the sentence?
—confirm or deny the truth of stories about the work of the services without risking the effectiveness of their operations and the lives of those who rely on them. The removal of this provision in clause 1(2) would actually allow the services to be traduced without challenge or any


effective restraint by those whose words on those matters must carry particular weight because of the trust that they actually hold.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I should like to make an inquiry about the way in which this clause is drafted. Does this mean that Mr. John Le Carré is liable to prosecution? He purports to write about things in a fictional way. He is clearly game for prosecution.

Mr. Patten: I was just about to try to deal with points of that sort—and that one was raised specifically by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason). [Interruption.] May I please address myself to the questions that were raised earlier? The hon. Member for Erdington mentioned the man in the Swan. The point that has escaped the hon. Gentleman is that, if this person is a notified person, as he said, they, he or she is in a position of trust. If that trust were abused by making allegations, that person would indeed be committing an offence.
On the issue of entrapment, the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) was right in his interpretation of the English law, but, of course, under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—I believe that the hon. Member for St. Helens, South served on the Standing Committee—the court may refuse to allow evidence on which the prosecution proposes to rely if it appears to the court that the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it, and it is a question for the court in the circumstances of the case.

Mr. Bermingham: Does the Minister not agree that, under clause 78, where the court has discretion to allow or permit evidence, the only evidence that the court would be asked to allow or deny is the evidence of the complainant; the court could not be told whether the evidence of the complainant was true or false? Therefore, the court would have nothing to rely on in coming to its decision under clause 78. What the hon. Gentleman is saying is nonsense in law.

Mr. Patten: What I am saying is that it is at the discretion of the court.
The third question that was asked by the hon. Member for Erdington concerned the man who writes a novel and gives information unwittingly. That point was picked up by a number of my hon. Friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay was interested in the case of Mr. Le Carré—I regret to say that I have not read many of Mr. Le Carré's novels—as was my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Gorst) was interested in works of satire and poetry and whether they might be caught in this way. If the defendant does not have reasonable cause to believe that the information is true, and does not hold it out as true, or intend—that is such an important word—it to be taken as true, he of course commits no offence at all.
I accept that it would be absurd if a former member of the security services writing a genuine spy novel were in danger of prosecution simply because some people took his fiction as truth. That is why we require the prosecution to show that it was the defendant's intention that the information be taken as true.
The Bill does not inhibit the writing of a genuine spy novel such as you, Mr. Walker, or I might read on our holidays from this place, but it will prevent the use of fiction where the real purpose is to disclose fact.

Mr. Allason: This is an important point. My hon. Friend has in effect said that an author will be committing an offence only if he intends what he has written to be taken as fact. In the publishing world, the author produces a manuscript which goes to the publisher, who then produces a dust jacket on which is something called the blurb. That is written by the publisher, not the author. John Le Carr?'s next book—I hope that he will not he next in the dock—will unquestionably carry the publisher's blurb saying that the book comes from somebody with inside experience.

Mr. Patten: An author will be caught only if he uses the pretence of fiction to make disclosures relating to security intelligence. Only then would such a person be liable to prosecution.

Mr. Hattersley: With the passing of two Committee days, we have grown sceptical of the Minister's assurances when they do not relate to the Bill. When he gave his assurances a moment ago that authors of fiction would be covered, he misread the line of the Bill on which the assurance was based. I think that he was reading lines 16 and 17 when he said:
purports to be a disclosure of such information and is intended to be taken by those to whom it is addressed as being such a disclosure.

Mr. John Patten: indicated assent.

Mr. Hattersley: The Minister agrees, but what I have just read is not what the Bill says. The Bill says:
purports to be a disclosure of such information or is intended".
Either of the two conditions is enough to prosecute and convict. That is quite different from what the Minister just told us.

Mr. Patten: The right hon. Gentleman will have to read the record tomorrow. What I have said is entirely consistent. It would be a member of the service, or, more likely, a former member of the service, who would be using the cover of fiction to reveal something that was true, or putting about through some blurb, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason), something which purported to be true and was thus intended to damage the service.

Mr. Hattersley: rose—

Mr. Patten: I shall not give way. I have answered the right hon. Gentleman in terms. The right hon. Gentleman is fond of mistaking disagreement for misunderstanding. He has used that line throughout our discussions.

Mr. Maclennan: rose—

Mr. Patten: No, I shall not give way for a moment; I have given way a great deal. I shall give way later. In Committee, both upstairs and on the Floor of the House, it is normal to allow an hon. Member who has given way to respond to the questions that he has been asked.
That is why we require the prosecution to show throughout that it was the defendant's intention that the information should always be taken as true.

Sir Ian Gilmour: My hon. Friend has given way a great deal and has shown the Committee every consideration and courtesy. I am still slightly worried about his answer to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). At least twice earlier, he stressed the importance of the word "intended". That is obviously important for the last phrase of the subsection, but I cannot see how it has any relevance at all to the first part. If the word were "and", my hon. Friend's defence of the clause would be very able, but as it is "or", my hon. Friend seems to be rather wide of the mark.

Mr. Patten: The word "purports" is on the face of the Bill and that means what it says.

Mr. Hattersley: What does "purport" mean?

Mr. Patten: The right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Erdington have got themselves into a terrible state of confusion about this. We recognise, and we made it clear in our White Paper, that this provision is not at present covered by section 2 of the Official Secrets Act. We believe that without clause 1(2) there would be a serious loophole in the Government's defences. Since the Government have produced the carefully focused and tightly confined provisions of the Bill, I urge the Committee not to allow a flaw in the very area that the Committee should be seeking most to protect. That is why I must ask the Committee to reject the amendment.

Mr. Norman Buchan: Let me first pick up the Minister's last point. This becomes almost a matter of grammar, let alone anything else. With the word "or", the words
purports to be a disclosure
cannot mean the same as the following passage. That cannot mean "intended". The Minister must reconsider that. If he does not, we must be able to interpret it in the way that we are properly doing at present.
The Minister also appears to be misreading another aspect—that of the agent provocateur. He seems to be doing a disservice to some of his own people in the field who, as part of their work, use precisely the same tactics that are dealt with in the clause and which the Government are now saying are illegal.
Thirdly, there is the development of "faction"—the kind of writing that bases itself upon an accuracy in milieu—an accuracy in the atmosphere and in the tools and methods that are employed. John Le Carré is accurate in many ways. There are others. The Home Secretary himself is almost an agent provocateur in relation to the Scottish situation in his novel "Scotch on the Rocks". We may be too sensible to be taken in by some of his characters who purport to be creating the situation in that book, but there are many matters of astonishing accuracy.
One thinks of the cause celebre two or three years ago with the fictionalised version of the Etaples mutiny, when all hell broke loose because people insisted on treating every word as if it purported to be, or was intended to be, the truth. In fact it did purport to be, but was not intended to be, not an accurate version but a fictional version. Yet it was undoubtedly taken as a disclosure of fact by those people to whom it was addressed.
One thinks of those who have been close to the Secret Service. Graham Greene's novel "Our Man In Havana" has the extraordinary theme of the man in Havana who

keeps his job by purporting to be providing drawings and sketches of a new secret weapon, which turns out to be a vacuum cleaner.
The fictionalised version of "Tumbledown" was also close to fact and was taken to be fact, in the sense that the feel of the thing was right, even though individual episodes and language were not true. This is a grey area that the Minister has ignored and it is a dangerous area to leave as it is in the Bill.
One thinks of the Prime Minister's favourite reading. When she was asked what she was reading, she said that she was re-reading Frederick Forsyth's novel "The Fourth Protocol". As my wife pointed out—if I may bring her into this—the Prime Minister must be the only person in Britain who has read a whodunnit, knows who done it and then has to read it again to make sure. We get such examples in Frederick Forsyth's novels.
This subsection is an offence to accuracy and grammar, and must be withdrawn. It seems to drive a horse and cart through some of the other subsections of clause 1.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Walker. It would be greatly to the advantage of the Committee for a Law Officer to be present.

The Chairman: It is open to the Law Officers, as to any hon. Member, to attend our proceedings.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am grateful for the opportunity to intervene briefly. I followed what my hon. Friend the Minister said with great interest and I have some sympathy with a great deal of it, but he is wrong in what he appeared to be saying about the technical effect of subsection (2) containing the word "or", which he appears to have represented as "and". I shall read out the subsection so that it is on the record:
(2) The reference in subsection (1) above to disclosing information relating to security or intelligence includes a reference to making any statement which purports to be a disclosure of such information".
In effect, there is a full stop there, because it then says "or", and as an ex-practising barrister, I believe that what follows does not qualify what has been said up to that point.

Mr. Budgen: Does my hon. Friend agree that proper sympathy should be given to the Government Benches on this? In the Wright case, it was obvious that every judge before whom the case came had a different interpretation of the law, and it is possible for many people in good faith to have wholly different interpretations of these difficult subsections.
The scandal is that, rather than bothering to explain that carefully, the Government are trying to railroad the Committee. They are not trying to have their will accepted by argument.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: rose—

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: What is needed here is clarity. It is clear from the disagreement within the Committee among hon. Members with legal experience, that there is no such clarity in the clause at present. I agree with the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) about works of fiction. Many of them are partly based on fact, which the author must have obtained in the course of work as a secret agent. The mixture of fact and fiction is very much


to the benefit of the works of such authors and it makes reading their books so much more exciting than reading works of pure fiction, in which there is not a word of accuracy.
Is my hon. Friend the Minister telling the House categorically that such works will still be permitted if the Bill is passed in its present form? On my reading, that would not be the case. People such as John Le Carr? will be liable to prosecution, although there will be some discretion, and it is possible that they will not be prosecuted. [HON. MEMBERS: "That will make it worse."] The clause will not make it worse, because I am sure that it is not the Government's intention to put authors of the highest calibre into a position where they would risk their own safety and security by going to prison.

Mr. Hind: Will my hon. Friend go back to the point he made earlier and look at clause 1? If subsection (2) were divided into two parts, after
The reference in subsection (1) above to disclosing information relating to security or intelligence includes",
there should be, to make it clear, a figure (i) preceding
a reference to making any statement which purports to be a disclosure of such information or",
and a figure (ii) preceding
is intended to be taken by those to whom it is addressed as being such a disclosure.".
In those circumstances, does my hon. Friend agree that, if one takes the second category, any jury would have to be satisfied—in, for example, the case of John Le Carr?—that the author intended his work to be taken by those to whom it was addressed as such a disclosure? That would clearly not be satisfactory for a conviction.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, who is learned in law, he has added to the confusion. If there were such a subsection (2) as he proposes—which there is not it—would help to distinguish between the one and the other alternatives. That would at least be a move towards it. However, I do not agree that the fact that the disclosure had to be
intended to be taken by those to whom it is addressed as being such a disclosure
would necessarily form a defence, because it would be possible for a jury to read John Le Carré and to decide that he meant "M" to be taken to be the genuine nickname given to the chief of MI5. If a jury came to that conclusion, which would probably be correct, under the Bill, John Le Cant would be guilty and would have no defence. If my hon. Friend can answer that point, then it may be that I am mistaken, but that seems to be what the Bill says at present.

Mr. Gorst: Would my hon. Friend, with his legal background, care to give an opinion on whether, if the intention mentioned here is to reveal information but to do so in a fictionalised form, and supposing that such information was one third correct, two thirds correct or 90 per cent. correct, he would expect a prosecution to take place because the intention was there and the information, or at least the idea, was communicated? Or would my hon. Friend expect that the information would have to be 100 per cent. true? In that case, the law would be nonsense as a fictional setting can never be 100 per cent. accurate. From what my hon. Friend the Minister says, such works would be caught by the Bill.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: That is absolutely true. If any of the information disclosed in works of fiction is true, is

intended to be taken as true or purports to be true, the author will be caught under subsection (2). If that is so, the subsection must be wrong.

Sir Ian Gilmour: With his legal background, can my hon. Friend say whether, if "or" actually means "and", it means "and" everywhere else in the Bill? That would make the Bill confusing.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I take that question to be rhetorical. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to deal with my point.

Mr. John Patten: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I reply to my hon. Friends the Members for. Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), and Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst), to the latter of whom I failed to give a full answer on a matter that he raised earlier. I welcome the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster, with his legal background. I must tell my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) that the word is "or" not "and". The correct questions to be asked first are whether the author makes a statement that purports to make a disclosure or whether the author intends it to be taken as such. Genuine fictional matters cannot be caught by the Bill.
To answer the question raised by my hon. Friend the member for Torbay (Mr. Allason), a publisher writing a blurb would not be caught by that offence. A statement purports to be a disclosure of information relating to the work of the services if it says it is. If it does that, it is not necessary to consider the author's intention. That is right. If it does not, the prosecution must prove the intention.

Mr. Allason: rose—

Mr. Patten: I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North, to whom I omitted to reply properly earlier, that nothing written, whether it is fiction, allegory, satire or poetry, which is not intended to be taken by those to whom it is addressed as a disclosure about the work of the services, could be subject to the offence in subsection (2).

Mr. Allason: rose—

Mr. Corbett: That is as clear as mud. It is no good the Home Secretary saying that such an explanation is crystal clear. We are dealing not with Home Office press releases, but with the words in the Bill.

Mr. Maclennan: On a point of order, Mr. Walker. I am conscious of the time, but bearing in mind the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's answers and the evidence that many hon. Members have received from Justice, the British branch of the International Commission of Jurists, which does not support what the Minister has said, is it possible to make representations that the matter can be considered on Report? Clearly, the Minister's reply is misleading and we simply cannot accept it.

Mr. Allason: rose—

Mr. Corbett: The Minister appears to be saying that all parts of the Committee are confused about this, apart from him. That cannot be so. It is not possible. The Minister has confirmed—this is obvious to a blind man—that the word we are arguing about is "or", but he then insisted that it is treated as if it were "and". The Minister


completely avoided the point. He referred several times to an author seeking to use fiction as a cloak to reveal something that is true, but how in God's name can the Minister tell the Committee—

It being Six o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the order [13 February] and the Resolution this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 191, Noes 296.

Division No. 95]
[6 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Fisher, Mark


Aitken, Jonathan
Flannery, Martin


Allason, Rupert
Flynn, Paul


Allen, Graham
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Alton, David
Foster, Derek


Anderson, Donald
Foulkes, George


Armstrong, Hilary
Fraser, John


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Fyfe, Maria


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Galbraith, Sam


Ashton, Joe
Galloway, George


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Barron, Kevin
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Battle, John
Godman, Dr Norman A


Beckett, Margaret
Golding, Mrs Llin


Beith, A. J.
Gordon, Mildred


Bell, Stuart
Gorst, John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Gould, Bryan


Bermingham, Gerald
Graham, Thomas


Blair, Tony
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Blunkett, David
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Haynes, Frank


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Buchan, Norman
Heffer, Eric S


Buckley, George J.
Hinchliffe, David


Caborn, Richard
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hood, Jimmy


Campbell, Ron (Biyth Valley)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Howells, Geraint


Canavan, Dennis
Hoyle, Doug


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Ingram, Adam


Clay, Bob
Janner, Greville


Clelland, David
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cohen, Harry
Kennedy, Charles


Coleman, Donald
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Lamond, James


Corbett, Robin
Leadbitter, Ted


Corbyn, Jeremy
Leighton, Ron


Cousins, Jim
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Crowther, Stan
Lewis, Terry


Cummings, John
Litherland, Robert


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Livsey, Richard


Cunningham, Dr John
Loyden, Eddie


Dalyell, Tarn
McAllion, John


Darling, Alistair
McAvoy, Thomas


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
McCartney, Ian


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Macdonald, Calum A


Dewar, Donald
McFall, John


Dixon, Don
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Dobson, Frank
McKelvey, William


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McLeish, Henry


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Maclennan, Robert


Eadie, Alexander
McNamara, Kevin


East ham, Ken
McTaggart, Bob


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McWilliam, John


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Madden, Max


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Fearn, Ronald
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Martlew, Eric





Maxton, John
Short, Clare


Meacher, Michael
Sillars, Jim


Meale, Alan
Skinner, Dennis


Michael, Alun
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Snape, Peter


Morgan, Rhodri
Soley, Clive


Mullin, Chris
Spearing, Nigel


Nellist, Dave
Steel, Rt Hon David


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Strang, Gavin


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Straw, Jack


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Parry, Robert
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Patchett, Terry
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Pendry, Tom
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Pike, Peter L.
Turner, Dennis


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Vaz, Keith


Prescott, John
Wall, Pat


Primarolo, Dawn
Wallace, James


Radice, Giles
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Randall, Stuart
Wareing, Robert N.


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Reid, Dr John
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Richardson, Jo
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Wilson, Brian


Robinson, Geoffrey
Winnick, David


Rooker, Jeff
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Ruddock, Joan
Worthington, Tony


Salmond, Alex
Wray, Jimmy


Sedgemore, Brian



Sheerman, Barry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Mr. Nigel Griffiths and


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Mr. Frank Cook.


Shore, Rt Hon Peter





NOES


Adley, Robert
Burt, Alistair


Alexander, Richard
Butcher, John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Butler, Chris


Amess, David
Butterfill, John


Amos, Alan
Carrington, Matthew


Arbuthnot, James
Carttiss, Michael


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Cash, William


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Aspinwall, Jack
Chapman, Sydney


Atkins, Robert
Churchill, Mr


Atkinson, David
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Baldry, Tony
Colvin, Michael


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Conway, Derek


Batiste, Spencer
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Beggs, Roy
Cope, Rt Hon John


Bellingham, Henry
Couchman, James


Bendall, Vivian
Cran, James


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Benyon, W.
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Day, Stephen


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Dickens, Geoffrey


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Dicks, Terry


Body, Sir Richard
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dunn, Bob


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Durant, Tony


Boswell, Tim
Eggar, Tim


Bottomley, Peter
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Evennett, David


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Bowis, John
Fallon, Michael


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Favell, Tony


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Brazier, Julian
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Bright, Graham
Fishburn, John Dudley


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Fookes, Dame Janet


Browne, John (Winchester)
Forman, Nigel


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Forth, Eric


Burns, Simon
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman






Fox, Sir Marcus
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Franks, Cecil
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Freeman, Roger
Maclean, David


French, Douglas
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fry, Peter
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Gale, Roger
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Madel, David


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Major, Rt Hon John


Goodlad, Alastair
Malins, Humfrey


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Maples, John


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Marland, Paul


Gow, Ian
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Mates, Michael


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Maude, Hon Francis


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gregory, Conal
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Ground, Patrick
Miller, Sir Hal


Grylls, Michael
Miscampbell, Norman


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mitchell, Sir David


Hanley, Jeremy
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Hannam, John
Monro, Sir Hector


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Moss, Malcolm


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Hayes, Jerry
Mudd, David


Hayward, Robert
Neale, Gerrard


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Nelson, Anthony


Heddle, John
Nicholls, Patrick


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hind, Kenneth
Norris, Steve


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Holt, Richard
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hordern, Sir Peter
Page, Richard


Howard, Michael
Paice, James


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Patnick, Irvine


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Pawsey, James


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hunter, Andrew
Portillo, Michael


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Powell, William (Corby)


Irvine, Michael
Price, Sir David


Irving, Charles
Raffan, Keith


Jack, Michael
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Jackson, Robert
Rathbone, Tim


Janman, Tim
Redwood, John


Jessel, Toby
Renton, Tim


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Rhodes James, Robert


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Riddick, Graham


Key, Robert
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Kilfedder, James
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rost, Peter


Knapman, Roger
Rowe, Andrew


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Knox, David
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lang, Ian
Scott, Nicholas


Latham, Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lawrence, Ivan
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lee, John (Fondle)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Shelton, Sir William


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shersby, Michael


Lightbown, David
Sims, Roger


Lilley, Peter
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Lord, Michael
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Speller, Tony


McCrindle, Robert
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)





Squire, Robin
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Stanbrook, Ivor
Walden, George


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Steen, Anthony
Waller, Gary


Stern, Michael
Walters, Sir Dennis


Stevens, Lewis
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Warren, Kenneth


Stokes, Sir John
Watts, John


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Wells, Bowen


Sumberg, David
Wheeler, John


Summerson, Hugo
Whitney, Ray


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Widdecombe, Ann


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Wiggin, Jerry


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wilkinson, John


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wilshire, David


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Winterton, Nicholas


Thorne, Neil
Wolfson, Mark


Thornton, Malcolm
Wood, Timothy


Thurnham, Peter
Woodcock, Mike


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Yeo, Tim


Tredinnick, David
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Trippier, David
Younger, Rt Hon George


Trotter, Neville



Twinn, Dr Ian
Tellers for the Noes:


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones


Waddington, Rt Hon David
and Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause I agreed to.

Clause 2

DEFENCE

Mr. Hattersley: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 2, line 31, leave out 'damaging disclosure' and insert 'a disclosure which would cause serious injury to the interests of the nation'.

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No 7, in page 2, line 34, leave out 'damaging' and insert
'is one which would cause serious injury to the interests of the nation.'.
Government amendment No. 86.
No. 8, in page 2, line 36, leave out 'prejudices' and insert 'causes actual harm to'.
No. 20, in page 2, line 36, leave out 'prejudices' and insert
'causes serious injury to'.
No. 21, in page 2, line 37, after 'their', insert 'defence'
No. 22, in page 2, leave out lines 40 to 44.
No. 9, in page 2, line 41, leave out 'jeopardises' and
insert
'causes actual harm to'.

Mr. Hattersley: Amendment No. 6 provides the Committee with an opportunity, or as much opportunity as the timetable motion allows, directly to examine one of the protections that, according to the Home Secretary, run through the Bill and provide a safeguard against prosecution and conviction for trivial or inconsequential offences. The amendment specifically refers to the provision in clause 2(1), in line 31, that a disclosure is unlawful only if it is damaging. Through this amendment, we seek to replace the general motion of "damaging disclosure" with the more precise concept of
a disclosure which would cause serious injury to the interests of the nation.
The amendment relates exclusively to matters concerning defence. I assume that the Home Secretary will not object to that, as it is the sort of example that he


enjoys. I remind him, in the hope that a vestige of shame is retained in his attitude towards the Bill, that he told the Conservatives at Cambridge last week that a public interest defence would provide an excuse for disclosing the battle plans of the British Army of the Rhine.

Mr. Hurd: rose—

Mr. Hattersley: The shame manifests itself.

Mr. Hurd: It was esprit d'escalier. I thought of an argument after the debate here that I had not thought of before. If the right hon. Gentleman considers his previous amendments, which the Committee rejected, he will find that they are open to the description that I gave.

Mr. Hattersley: One of the difficulties of the debate is that the Government always use their best argument outside the Chamber. We must hope that the Minister of State can think of some better arguments outside the Chamber than those that he advanced in defence of the Government's position in the previous debate. We look forward to hearing the Home Secretary justify his position when we come to Report.
We have chosen to take the example of defence in part because it is a hard case. It is one that we should have to justify were we to say that a more stringent definition of damage, harm or serious damage or harm would be acceptable. The amendment would make the criteria against which harm is judged a great deal more precise. While it is explicitly concerned with information relating to the armed forces, it provides the Committee with an opportunity for general examination of our strongly held view that prosecution should be limited to matters which affect the security of the state.
The Home Secretary may argue that such is the case even now, for the clause refers to, and therefore prosecutions are limited to, something described as "damaging disclosure". In the Home Office press release announcing the publication of the Bill, he equated that concept of "damaging disclosure" with specific tests of harm to the public interest. Equating those two things was wholly unjustified because the definition in the Bill gives a whole new, much wider and, I would argue, more vacuous meaning—if, indeed, it has any meaning at all—to the word "damaging" as the Bill intends it to be understood.
In clause 2(2)(a), line 36, the term "damaging" is defined in its relationship to the armed forces. It begins with the assertion that a disclosure is damaging if
it prejudices the capability of, or any part of, the armed forces of the Crown to carry out their tasks".
That means any task—not serious tasks, tasks in defence of the realm, or tasks in pursuit of their role within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Farcical though it may seem, within the terms of the Bill it would be "damaging" and therefore a criminal offence if, by unauthorised publication, an official made it more difficult for troopers of the household brigade to arrive on time at Smith's lawn to act as labourers during a polo match.
One is always torn between pointing out the triviality of aspects of the Bill by giving trivial examples and reminding the Committee that, although the trivial examples show how wide the Bill's application might be, they also reveal a serious issue in the extent of its coverage. The Smith's

lawn case which I gave as an example of triviality is not beyond the bounds of possibility. I decided on that as an example after reading newspaper letters which suggested, rightly or wrongly, that at a time when the defence budget is under pressure, members of the armed forces should not be employed on such social tasks.
It is easy enough to imagine a demonstration delaying the progress of a bus from Knightsbridge to Windsor and the time of departure of the bus being revealed to the protesters by a dissentient in the Civil Service. I would regard that dissentient's conduct as deplorable, but we are not concerned with our subjective judgment about the behaviour of individuals. We must ask ourselves whether such an individual should be prosecuted under an Official Secrets Act and what kind of Bill would confer the power to make such a criminal prosecution in such admittedly and intentionally trivial circumstances.
My next example is perhaps clearer, more obvious, more meaningful and more practical. On Second Reading I told the House about the prospects of a fraud being committed at a Government defence establishment. I asked the House to assume that a civil servant had discovered corruption at a royal ordnance depot and that the news of that scandal was suppressed by authority. The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) was scandalised that I could suggest that such a thing might happen. Since that debate, I have received several letters from old soldiers giving examples of my hypothesis.
I wish to pursue the example as a hypothesis. There is corruption and internal complaints are suppressed. A member of the armed forces reveals the scandal so that it can be cleaned up. There is no doubt that under the Bill the man or woman who made the revelation would be prosecuted. The protection of the harm clause would not apply, because harm would have been done. The revelation would almost certainly prevent the depot from operating with its normal day-to-day smoothness and the operation of the armed forces would have been prejudiced in that particular. That would be enough to convict. Few sensible people would doubt that the revelation was in the national interest. If amendment No. 6 is carried, the prosecution would not in those circumstances succeed. Far from doing serious injury to the interests of the nation, my hypothetical disclosure would, in the long term, benefit the armed forces and the country.
The distinction between the harm test not providing protection in that case and my amendment doing so rests on the nature of the harm test as described by the Home Secretary—wholly accurately—when we debated the matter on Second Reading. The Home Secretary told the House:
The Bill does not allow the defendant to argue that although his disclosure has caused the specific harm, and he knew that it would, the court should weigh that against some other consideration.
When pressed by me, he was absolutely clear and absolutely right when he said:
the defence would simply argue that harm had not been done or that capability had not been damaged … but neither the prosecution nor the defence could import vague arguments derived from other matters."—[Official Report, 2 February 1989; Vol. 146, c. 470–71.]
By that he meant that it would be impossible for the defence to argue that, although a little harm had been done, a great deal of good had come from it. There would be no test of what I shall call net harm—weighing the harm


against the good and deciding which predominates. If that were the case—if we could judge what I call the net harm—it would in all but name be a public interest defence.
Whatever the terms or description, the fact that a small harm results in prosecution and the large good which comes from it does not constitute a defence seems to most reasonable people to undermine the Home Secretary's idea that the harm test is a defence against trivial prosecution and removes one of the eight, nine, 10, 12 or 15 protections that the Minister of State has told us about in one debate after another.

Mr. Terence L. Higgins: I believe that this is an appropriate point to intervene. Is there not an intermediate stage in the story that the right hon. Gentleman is recounting? Does not the civil servant go up the Civil Service hierarchy, if necessary to the head of the Civil Service, to seek a remedy before the events that the right hon. Gentleman described take place?

Mr. Hattersley: Yes, that is within his power and according to the Government that is what he should do. From the history which has been drawn to my attention since the previous debate—from letters on the subject—it is reasonable to imagine occasions when all attempts to object through the proper machinery have failed. Even if that only happens once, only happens in theory or does not happen very often, is it right that a person who discovers wrongdoing should not be able to offer as a defence the fact that although revealing the wrongdoing caused embarrassment, inconvenience or disruption. the revelation was a service to the nation?
The extent of the harm must be weighed under the terms of the amendment. The right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) must remember the other point. By stating that harm is the criterion and by defining it in the way in which it is defined in the Bill, no matter how trivial the harm, it is automatically a cause for prosecution and for conviction. On both criteria, the Bill is at fault.
The concept of harm and the serious injury concept which extends it, had their origins in the Franks report, which came down clearly on the side of serious injury being the measurement against which criminal prosecution should take place. That report proposed that a serious injury test should apply to criminal prosecutions in cases were unauthorised information about foreign relations, defence and the security and intelligence services was revealed.
The Home Secretary always asserts—and no doubt he will reassert it today—that the Franks espousal of the specific damage test is irrelevant because the Franks report was based on the notion of ministerial certification establishing what was an official secret and what was liable to prosecution in consequence. He has never done more than assert that the two things—certification and serious injury tests—are necessarily linked. I see no justification for his assertion that they go hand in hand. I look forward to hearing the Home Secretary's justification later.
I will explain why I cannot accept the connection. Under the Bill, prosecutions will conclude with the jury making a judgment about the effects of revelation. That was not anticipated by Franks, but that is no justification for refusing to include a test of serious injury against which the jury will make judgments about the effects of the revelation.
The jury must take a decision after direction on law. As the Bill stands, the law requires conviction if a disclosure
prejudices the capability of, or part of, the armed forces of the Crown to carry out their tasks
and that applies whatever the task, no matter how trivial or temporary. That is how harm is defined. That is a wholly unreasonable criterion against which to measure guilt, to obtain conviction and justify a prison sentence. A much more reasonable test for the jury would be to decide whether disclosure was damaging, and seriously damaging, to the national interest.
There are other reasons why the definition of what sort of information is revealed should be changed. As things stand, the definition of information which if revealed results in prosecution is extraordinarily wide. Not only is it a criminal offence to disclose any information which prejudices any action by the armed forces; it is similarly an offence to disclose any information which is likely to have that effect.
Technically at least, revelation of information which is likely to make the bus carrying the band turn up late at the garden party is an offence under the Bill. Information which is likely to have the effect of making the military band turn up late for the garden party is an offence under the Bill. The Home Secretary smiles, and I am glad to see him do so, but my belief is that that is not the result which the Home Secretary intended. I ask the Home Secretary to take a more rational view of the criteria against which harm and damage to the nation and the real effects of the Bill are measured.
Throughout our discussions, we have tried to draw a distinction between the suppression of information that, if revealed, will be genuinely damaging to the national interest and the allowance of, or support for, the revelation of information that will have no lasting damage. Without the criterion that we propose, that distinction is not made. If the Home Secretary cannot accept our amendment, only one conclusion can be drawn—that the Government want to retain the catch-all powers, but in a concealed way.

Mr. Buchan: I wish to continue the argument about the balance between harm done and public interest in regard to a clause that refers to an absolute power in defence matters. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) gave the example of an individual exposing corruption. I shall give a hypothetical example, although it may prove to be not so hypothetical after all.
First, I refer to the case of the radiation leak at Windscale. What would have happened if Windscale had been a military establishment, and if an individual had revealed that leak in the interests of public safety? Under the Bill, he would automatically be guilty, because he would have done damage by prejudicing the capability of that defence establishment.
On the Clyde, there is a major nuclear base. Anything disclosed about that base which could be to its detriment might be said, under clause 2, to cause harm. But if a radiation leak occurred at that base, harm would he done to a number of nearby towns, and even to Glasgow itself. It would be necessary to reveal such a leak in the interests of the nation. But even under the amendment proposed by the Home Secretary, damage would be done to the


nation's defence capability, in the sense that the efficacy and efficiency of that base's nuclear deterrence would be brought into question.
There is a clear balance of interest, but not a balance of judgment. There is a balance of interest in favour of defence secrecy, but not a balance of interest relating to the need to disclose facts affecting public health—so that public authorities could deal with the situation by evacuation, for example. There is no balance of judgment, because the clause deals only with the question whether damage is done to the nation's defence capability, and allows for no judgment to be made between the relative balance of those two interests.
Government amendment No. 86, which proposes to change the word "prejudices" to "damages", does not go anywhere near tackling the situation. What is needed is the precision of amendment No. 6 and the wording
a disclosure which would cause serious injury to the interest of the nation.
There is no doubt that the interest of the nation would be damaged if a radiation leak at a military establishment were disclosed and if no action were taken by the civilian authorities to deal with it. Our amendment would deal with that real problem. I say that it is a "real problem" because I am dealing with an actual case. After the experience of Windscale in 1957, there is no doubt that something similar could happen in relation to a military establishment. The Home Secretary looks as though he wishes to make a point.

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman seems to be switching his argument between civilian and military installations, and assuming that Windscale is a military installation. In the case of a civilian institution, a different range of arguments apply. Such a case would fall outside the scope of the Bill, but not outside section 2 of the present Act.

Mr. Buchan: I am aware of that. I make the point that a leak took place at Windscale, and that it was covered up.

Mr. Hurd: Windscale is not a military installation.

Mr. Buchan: I know. The right hon. Gentleman does not get my point. I shall repeat it, in monosyllables if possible.
A radiation leak occurred at Windscale, which was not disclosed. Today, we have on the Clyde a military defence establishment. If a leak at a civilian installation was covered up, a leak on a military base is likely to be covered up also—it may be considered even more important to do so. If a radiation leak occurred on a warship, when the potential damage would be much greater, and if an honest whistleblower, with the interests of the public in mind, disclosed that leak, there would be no balance of judgment between the damage done to defence interests and the protection against the potential damage to the local community.
Clause 2 makes the individual responsible for such a disclosure automatically guilty. I cited a real example involving a civilian installation, but one that could recur in respect of a military installation. The Government's provision does not hold, and the clause should be amended so that there will be a balance of judgment between national interest and greater public safety. Now does the right hon. Gentleman understand my point?

Mr. Hurd: indicated assent.

Mr. Allason: First, I apologise if, when I spoke before, I sounded as though I was acting as John Le Carré's agent—I have no interest in him whatsoever.
I draw the attention of the Committee to what I suspect is retrospective notification in clause 2. There has been a Front Bench admission that there will be no retrospective notification of people under section 1 of the Official Secrets Act 1911. However, clause 2(4)(c) gives a definition of defence that includes "intelligence". I am worried in case that is a back-door method of restrospective notification. It suggests that anyone who has been a Crown servant at any time will be subject to that provision.
Clause 2 defines defence, very broadly, as intelligence. That is a matter to which the Committee should give its serious consideration. In the past, there have been occasions—this relates specifically to the test of harm and serious damage—when disclosures relating to intelligence have been made that, although not damaging, have caused great controversy. I give three examples concerning advice to the Prime Minister, where disclosure was subsequently demonstrated to be clearly in the public good. My concern is that, if clause 2 is interpreted as offering retrospective notification, it will be prohibitive.
The first example must be the case of Anthony Blunt, which sank the Government's last attempt to undertake a bit of reform. It failed miserably; but why did it fail?
In November 1979, Anthony Blunt was contemplating defamation proceedings against an author. The Government had a clear choice. They could stand back and watch Blunt perjure himself in the witness box, which was the advice that they received from the Security Service, or they could make a statement which would expose Blunt's treachery. The Security Service argued at the time that it would be fatal for the Prime Minister to make any kind of statement relating to Anthony Blunt, because it would turn the potent weapon of immunity from prosecution into something completely useless: no one else would ever believe an offer of immunity from prosecution if it were disclosed officially that an individual had been given such immunity. Thanks to the intervention of the then Attorney-General—and, I suspect, to her own background as a barrister—the Prime Minister declined to take that advice, and made a very full statement.
Let me cite a related case with which I was involved. This was another important disclosure, which I think was made very much in the public interest and did not jeopardise security or the nation. At the time of the Blunt disclosure, the House was given an assurance that no one else had been given immunity from prosecution, and that there had been no other traitors who had confessed. Hon. Members will recall that, within a matter of months, a man called Leo Long was revealed to have been a spy and a traitor, and had made a statement to the Security Service. When the matter came before the House, the advice of the Security Service was, "Of course, Leo Long is an entirely different case. He did not receive immunity from prosecution; he was simply told that he would not be prosecuted." That definition surprised many people, especially lawyers.
I cannot believe that the Government Front Bench can be sanguine about this subject, in view of the advice given to the Prime Minister recently about Sir Roger Hollis. There was a clear implication that no Soviet penetration of the security or intelligence services had taken place after


the second world war—that all the evidence of such penetration was pre-1945. That is very relevant, because it was the one statement that prompted Peter Wright to say, "Hang on a second: I know that that isn't true. There is evidence of Soviet penetration, particularly of the Security Service, in 1963."
This is a minefield. Great care must be taken, and I would be very nervous about any kind of back-door notification. In my view, disclosures of this kind can certainly be in the public interest.

Mr. Gorst: Would any of my hon. Friend's three examples be prohibited under the Bill at some future time?

Mr. Allason: Certainly those disclosures could not have been made under clause 1.
Members of the security and intelligence services understand their position, although they may not like the idea of being told retrospectively that they are now covered by an entirely new form of legislation that restricts their human rights. And who knows—many of them may well he prompted to go to the European court in the future. They have experienced, or are about to experience, retrospective legislation. But my argument does not concern people who are already members of the intelligence and security services, or are joining them now. They accept the burden of responsibility knowing full well the implications and, indeed, the restrictions. I am concerned about the business of notification.
6.45 pm
Clause I would not only include members of the intelligence and security services—who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) suggested, are now members of a unique group like a leper colony, never able to make any kind of disclosure or to discuss their work in any circumstances. It would also include those who would be subject to notification. Although we have received an assurance from the Government that there will be no retrospective notification, I believe that the clause, and the subsection to which I have referred, can be interpreted as exactly that: back-door, retrospective notification.
Let me give a more specific example of what could be described as a dilemma. Some years ago a British business man was imprisoned in the Soviet Union for espionage. He was subsequently swapped and brought back to this country. We now know that he was in the employ of the Secret Intelligence Service at the time.
That man would have an interest, would he not, in learning that his case officer—the man who recruited and employed him—had been revealed in documents, declassified in the United States, as having been in touch with the Soviet military intelligence service, the GRU, in 1946? It would certainly be of considerable interest to someone who had spent eight months in the Lubianka to learn that not all his difficulties might have been at the hands of the Soviets—that there might have been an entirely different aspect of his case. Yet not only will he be unable to pursue or investigate the matter; he will be unable to discuss his experience or to seek advice.
I urge the Government to recognise that they are not legislating to deal with some obscure future threat. At present 75 books are published in England and America each year on the subject of intelligence, and 300 universities in America offer intelligence courses. This is an open, legitimate topic for study, and it is absurd to try to

prevent people from providing the benefit of their experience. We are limiting their human rights if we do that.

Mr. Winnick: Allegations have been made before that Sir Roger Hollis may have been a Soviet spy. I have not a clue whether he was or not, but is it not true to say that the same accusations are made from the other side? I well remember that when Beria, Stalin's Himmler, was charged with all kinds of offences and executed, he was accused not of the crimes of which he was really guilty, but—in 1953, shortly after Stalin's death—of being a lifelong agent of British intelligence. I was most surprised that British intelligence had been successful enough to have an agent who was No. 2 in the Kremlin.

Mr. Allason: The hon. Gentleman will be amused to know that the first three heads of the NKVD, the MVD and the KGB all came to a sticky end. They were all executed for exactly the same reason—that they were members of the British intelligence service. Taking up the hon. Gentleman's point about Sir Roger Hollis, I was not making an accusation, and I apologise if that was not clear. I was making the specific point that people within the intelligence community knew for an absolute fact that there was Soviet penetration of the Security Service in 1963. That caused considerable anxiety when the House was assured that the evidence of Soviet penetration could be explained by Anthony Blunt, Kim Philby and Guy Burgess. That was blatantly untrue because the proof related to 1963, not prior to 1945.
I shall now turn briefly to Anthony Cavendish. The Committee will be interested to know that Anthony Cavendish has already written one book and has been the subject of legal proceedings. but that does not concern us. However, his new book con tract is for a biography of Sir Maurice Oldfield. As I understand the Bill, he will be in the queue behind John Le Carré—and probably behind me as well—for the No. 1 court at the Old Bailey, because he will be banned from writing anything on any subject. That ban will include not only his own experiences but a legitimate biography of someone else.
I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench to realise that the legislation will not work. We will have egg on our faces for so long into the future. I cannot imagine that the Government believe that by turning the legislation into a laughing stock and by guillotining the time allocated to it they will achieve anything except one great objective—to boost the business and profits of publishers in New York and not in London.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Clause 2 involves the serious matter of defence and it is important that we get it right. I am not sure that the procedures that we are following are the best way of doing that.
The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) made me realise the importance of the meaning of words. Although I understand that we have decoupled the Franks recommendation of gearing the matter to classification, certain words still have to be interpreted when the Attorney-General decides to prosecute or when decisions are taken in court. The hon. Member for Torbay referred to the definition of intelligence in one context. I am involved with other contexts in research into terrorism. Only the other day we discussed what is meant by intelligence information. All too often intelligence is no more than information, but the word has a much wider


meaning than simply a collection of facts. When the terms "intelligence" and "intelligence officers" were used in the armed forces they were not used in the sense in which they are used in books and in general.
The hon. Member for Torbay spoke about the past, and of course time is an important consideration. When does information cease to inflict serious injury? Something may have been important 20 or 30 years ago but is not important now—I am not referring simply to the 30-year rule. The accountability of the Security Service is also important in that context. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Prime Minister's statement about Blunt. That statement, word for word, had been prepared when I was Home Secretary. If the hon. Gentleman's allegation is true, either in the statement or in the questioning afterwards, that more than three people were involved, there is no way that I would have known many years later whether the answer with which I was provided was true or false, because no information is given to an incoming Government about a previous Administration. Therefore, one is not au fait with all the matters when something breaks.
As the hon. Member for Torbay demonstrated, clause 2 contains many matters that ought to be discussed thoroughly. I shall concentrate on amendments Nos. 6 and 7, tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends and supported by others, with particular reference to the words
serious injury to the interests of the nation.
I remind the Committee, as I always have to remind myself, that section 1 of the Official Secrets Act, 1911 is the spy provision and that is not affected by the changes made in clause 2 of the Bill. No one has any time for the spies who, for a variety of reasons, engage in selling one country to another for some purpose. We are discussing clause 2, but the real spy provision is section 1 of the Official Secrets Act, which will remain on the statute book.
Let me deal with what is meant by the words "serious injury". Ministers have suggested repeatedly that the Bill deals with disclosures which cause serious harm. The Home Secretary used those words. The amendments use exactly the same words, so there should be no disagreement on that. The Home Secretary said:
it will be for the jury to decide whether a disclosure caused or was likely to cause the form of serious harm to the public that the Bill specifies."—[Official Report, 2 February 1989; Vol. 146, c. 469.]
The Minister of State said:
The Government do not accept that the criminal law is the right place to balance one Crown servant's perception of the public interest against the specific and serious damage that his disclosure has caused."—[Official Report, 21 December 1988: Vol. 144, c. 540.]
"Serious damage" and "serious injury" are the theme song of the Ministers and of letters that they have written to hon. Members.
In his usual way, my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr Dalyell) put 14 questions to the Home Secretary. The Minister of State replied:
Your fourteenth question is based on the assumption that the object of the Bill is to stop leaks.
The reply continues:
The object of the Bill is to ensure that in future the criminal law will penalise only those unauthorised disclosures of official information which cause a serious degree of harm to the public interest".

The Leader of the House, in the guillotine debate, talked about the Bill being a radical
narrowing of the scope of the criminal law".
He also said that what we will now be dealing with is
official information whose unauthorised disclosure would cause a serious degree of harm to the public interest"—[Official Report, 13 February 1989; Vol. 147, c. 71.]
In preparing myself to deal with amendment Nos. 6 and 7, I asked myself first why I am deploying an argument when the Home Secretary, his Minister of State and a letter from the Home Office talked about serious injury. What is there against putting "serious injury" into the Bill, because everybody uses those words?

7 pm

Mr. Corbett: The Home Secretary has been more helpful than he has told us. On 21 December, the right hon. Gentleman spoke about an unacceptable degree of harm to the public interest, implying that there were different degrees of harm or injury. That supported the argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) that, as the Franks committee said, criminal law should apply only to the area where it is serious harm, and disclosures which did not cause serious harm should not fall within the provisions of the criminal law.

Mr. Rees: I had not paid much attention to the question of official secrets until I was appointed to the Franks committee, where I learned a great deal.
The question of classification may be important to right hon. and hon. Members at later stages of the Bill. I understand that the Government have decoupled classification, as in the report, from the Bill. I understand, too, that that is why the Home Secretary referred to juries in the extract from his speech which I quoted. It is important to my argument to use the classifications, whether it is coupled or uncoupled.
On the Franks committee, we decided to repeat briefly where the criminal law should apply to the classifications used in the Civil Service. "Top Secret" means exceptionally grave damage to the nation. "Secret" means serious injury to the interests of the nation. It said in the debate last week that we felt at the time—I never put my mind to it very much afterwards, but I should have done—that the classification "secret" was given to documents to which it should not apply. When the classification "secret" was used in the leaked National Health Service document, it should not have been. The leaking of that document would not have caused serious injury to the interests of the nation. Whether anybody supports the leaking of that document by a civil servant or not, it would not have caused serious injury to the interests of the nation.
When I re-read our report the other day, it caught my eye that we put in a separate section entitled "Confidential". Under that heading we said:
It is worth noting that in common parlance 'confidential—
which is the third classification—
means something less than 'secret'.
In the Government's system, the marking CONFIDENTIAL represents a secret".
We discovered that "confidential" was a pretty high classification. When one looks at documents which have the classification "confidential", we can see how the


classification has been misused. Whether coupled to prosecution or not, we decided that serious injury should be the key on which prosecutions should be decided.

Mr. Hurd: I have been following the speech of the right hon. Gentleman with great interest, but will he accept that under the Bill that Cabinet document on health, whatever
its classification—"confidential", "secret" or whatever, and whether it was a good or had classification—would not have been covered under the criminal law, regardless of the damage that might have been alleged? Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that it should be covered by the law, provided that it did serious damage, or is he as liberal as we are?

Mr. Rees: I have never reached the point of having to declare myself a liberal. I shall leave that to the right hon. Gentleman. Of course, I understand that point. What I said was that. in deciding whether or not there should be a prosecution, it does not help if the word "secret" is stamped on documents that should not be classified in that way. It is time that the classification was changed. That document should have had a classification which said that it should not be revealed until next week, after which it would be public knowledge.
I shall quote what the Franks committee said about the security of the nation and the safety of the people. The Franks report has been the bible on which I worked when I was Home Secretary and when I was in Northern Ireland. I recommend that hon. Members read part II, chapter 9, of that report. Paragraph 116 says:
National security is widely, accepted as the prime justification for employing criminal sanctions to protect official information.
Paragraph 117 says:
It is in this context that strong measures are clearly justified in preventing serious injury to the nation.
I want to prevent serious injury to the nation. I do not want there to he any dubiety about that when the legislation is passed. Paragraph 117 continues:
It is less clear that the criminal law must be brought in to reinforce other means of protection where the possible injury is of a less serious nature. The most obvious example is defence.
I quoted that passage because the most obvious example is defence, and clause 2 refers to defence.
The report says:
It is less clear that the criminal law must be brought in … The most obvious example is defence. Some defence information is highly secret: its unauthorised disclosure would cause serious injury to the nation, and it requires full protection. Some defence information is public knowledge.
Some defence information may he classified and protected in this country, but one can read all about it in the United States. We shall come to that point when we deal with information which has already been published.
Paragraph 117 goes on:
In between these two extremes, there is a continuous gradation … In our view, the appropriate test on this basis, in relation to national security, is that unauthorised disclosure would cause serious injury to the nation.
Paragraph 118 says:
This means that the criminal law would not apply to information the unauthorised disclosure of which would cause some injury to the interests of the nation, but short of serious injury.
That was not a weekend article in the quality press but an inquiry under the chairmanship of Lord Franks, with all his great proconsul experience in government during the

war and as an ambassador in the United States. It does not apply to all defence information. Some information would not be caught.
I want to ask the Home Secretary whether the way in which the Bill is drawn—forget the decoupling—means that the disclosure of information which would cause less than serious injury to the defence of the nation would be caught by this clause and the Bill in general. If it would be, we have moved a long way from Franks, as well as decoupling the classification, which is neither here nor there. The Home Secretary smiles in his diffident way. Is there something wrong in my argument?

Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman is missing out the other side of the coin that he is minting. The other side of the coin is that the Frank's analysis would lead to a great deal of information—which we are proposing to liberate from the criminal law—remaining under the criminal law, providing that the prosecution could prove in the case of Budget secrets or secret documents on education that serious harm was done. The right hon. Gentleman has not admitted that.

Mr. Rees: I have with me the statement I made in 1976. If the Home Secretary looks at it, he will see that we did the same thing. Therefore, there is nothing new in that. I am talking about defence. Franks said that the test for defence should be one of serious injury only, but is there a departure from Franks which makes the clause more restrictive?

Mr. Gorst: Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on another aspect? If the Home Secretary were to find that the Ponting case and "Spycatcher" arose under defence, he might argue that the words 'serious damage" would not have led to a conviction but the word "harm" would. Perhaps the difference between ourselves and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on this matter is what would be included and would lead to a conviction and what would be left out.

Mr. Rees: That is an interesting point and is one reason why we should consider the clause in more detail than we will have a chance to do. I appeared as expert witness, or whatever it is in legal parlance, in the Ponting case at the Old Bailey. That is not my wont because, as the Home Secretary points out, I am not noted for liberality.

Mr. Tony Banks: True.

Mr. Rees: I have received confirmation from my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks).
I appeared at the Old Bailey after discussing the matter with a colleague from the previous Government and I went on one basis. The Government had said that it was not a security matter, did not involve a serious injury to the state and did not warrant the use of the criminal law. Before I made my statement in 1976, the late Sam Silkin, who was then Attorney-General, had a word with me in his diffident way. He was a Law Officer, and was therefore divorced from the ways of government. I said in 1976 that I was authorised by the Attorney-General to say that, because I had made that statement, from that time criminal prosecutions would take place only for serious injury to the state or classifications above that. Therefore, from that time, for a period of three years, Sam Silkin gave effect to those words.


I am not talking about what happens at the Department of Education and Science or the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, because that is a different argument. We are talking about defence. The Government have gone too far. The test should still be one of serious injury. I accept that classification has gone awry over the years under all Governments and we have to consider how the test should be applied in terms of the words which appear on documents.
I understand from words used earlier in the debate that there is some information in Northern Ireland, which, over here, would be seen as unimportant—not just in the seamless robe argument—but which should be protected. Unfortunately, just outside Belfast some soldiers at a sports meeting were killed because a bomb was placed in their unit truck. It is clear that information about the movement of soldiers in Northern Ireland, whether in vehicles leaving Aldergrove and going to Armagh or going to a sports meeting at Lisburn, has to be protected because it is vital to the lives of those soldiers. Some information can be revealed in some places but not in others; I understand that.
7.15 pm
How will the system work in practice? I do not want to refer to the clause dealing with the role of the Attorney-General, but he is still in control of prosecutions. I presume that his decision will be based on public interest. That is why I was astonished that the Government continued to act against Wright in Australia under the civil law when permission had been given to Chapman Pincher to publish the same information a year or two before. I know that I am dealing with the clauses dealing with pre-publication, but information is worth protecting only because one is protecting the defence or security services. It is not worth protecting it when it is too late.
Will notification mean that every part of clause 2 will, to the Attorney-General, be worthy of prosecution? Will the words "public interest", which I presume still apply to the Attorney-General, mean that he can say, "Let us not proceed with this because it is palpably silly"? Clause 2 is more widely drawn than I expected, and it is important to know for the record what the role of the Attorney-General will be in defence secrets.
It is important to get things right when we are dealing with defence secrets. It is important when the lives of individuals are at risk. The chapter from the Franks report from which I quoted talks about the security of the nation and security of the people. That is true when we deal with prisons, prison information and certain types of information collected by the police. We do not do a service to the community if we go too far.
These will be the last words that I utter in this debate because I have to go to my home town where there is a local by-election. I cannot resist the temptation to go there as I was involved in the first by-election there many years ago.

Mr. Buchan: Is that confidential or secret?

Mr. Rees: It is classified as secret.
It is important that the Attorney-General and other Ministers should know where they stand. It is also important that the people working in the defence services should know where they stand. I believe that the

Government have gone too far and that their actions will lead to the law being broken in defence matters more often than it should be. They should think again.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I delayed speaking because I wanted to hear the contribution made by the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds South (Mr. Rees). I wanted to hear his comments on "serious injury" and Franks, which underwrites many of our views and our approach to the matter.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned several statements made by the ministerial team. He pointed out that on 2 February 1988 in column 469 of Hansard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State talked about "serious harm". He pointed out that my hon. Friend the Minister of State referred to "serious damage", on 21 December in columns 540–41 and that on 13 February my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House also referred to that. I saw the transcript and heard the reports and I know that in his address to the Royal Television Society my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary again referred to "serious damage", and it is mentioned in the letter to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).
That shows the difficulty that we have had. Terms are used inside and outside the House which convey a spirit or sense of the Government's intent. If the Government wanted to legislate with a test of "serious harm", I would have no objection and would support entirely the intention of my right hon. Friend. Government amendment No. 86 reads:
Clause 2, page 2, line 36, leave out 'prejudices' and insert 'damages'.
That is where the difficulty arises. My right hon. Friend the
Home Secretary told us in the course of one of our debates that he had listened carefully to the arguments, and he picked up his distinguished former colleague Sir Leon Brittan's observation about the word "prejudice". Sir Leon Brittan said:
It would be easier to prove that the material that is disclosed prejudices something than that it does serious harm … I do not see any justification for what amounts to a tightening up of proposals that were originally put forward in 1979."—[Official Report, 22 July 1988; Vol. 137, c. 1430.]
Then, in taking account of what was said in that debate on the White Paper, the Government respond with a significant shift—an amendment to leave out "prejudices" and insert "damages". I am not sure what the Government are trying to do. They talk in terms of serious injury and harm and then eschew the concept in legislation. I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has shrugged off my comment, but too much of the Bill has been legislation by Home Office press release and statements outside the House, resulting in a failure to give attention to what is proposed in the Bill.
A few minutes ago we were debating another matter and I heard the Minister of State, who I take it has now been elevated to the position of a Law Lord, no less, make statements about a judicial interpretation. One reason why my right hon. Friend said that he wanted reform of the law was that he wanted clarity so that everyone would know where they stood. However, every step of the debate has shown confusion, not clarity. What we discussed in the previous debate and shall discuss in this one is our understanding of the Government's intent.
I understand that it is not the Government's intention to prosecute Mr. Le Carré. It would be ridiculous to do so, and no Government would attempt it.

Mr. David Owen: Do not be so sure.

Mr. Shepherd: The Bill is drafted in such a way that the Attorney-General still has that option. The matter remains unclarified. It would be useful if the Government, having listened to these debates, came forward with amendments to clarify the issue. Clarity is one thing, obfuscation is another; and much of the Bill is obfuscation.

Mr. Gorst: I suggest to my hon. Friend that, although they cannot admit it, the Government distrust the jury system. If the words "serious damage" were used, some cases that they might wish to bring would fall. On the other hand, if the word "damage" were used, unqualified, the jury would not be given the option—having heard the arguments in court—to bring in a verdict of not guilty. I fear that distrust of what juries may do may lie behind the Government's position.

Mr. Shepherd: I accept that point and I understand that the Government, feeling seriously and strongly about an issue that they believe causes serious damage, may fear that the definition may fail to meet the test of a jury. The Government therefore set the barrier of prosecution so low that it would be quite exceptional if a case failed to meet the test. That is why we always return to the Franks committee's definition of what should constitute the level of damage caused by leaked information which would trigger off a criminal prosecution that could render the leaker liable to two years imprisonment. That is what the debate has been about.
I respect my right hon. Friend's concern for the security of information that can damage us all as citizens. However, the way in which he has gone about the matter has not helped his cause. He has determined that no amendments should be taken and that there should be no discussion. That is counter-productive. He then imposes a guillotine which arouses suspicions that the Government are unable to argue their case on the Floor of the House. That damages not only the Government but the Conservative party. It is absurd that we cannot form a consensus on such an important issue. We have a common object—to ensure that information which seriously injures our national interests triggers off a prosecution which is likely to lead to the person who caused the damage being convicted and imprisoned. I have not heard any hon. Member dissent from that principle. It is all that we are trying to establish.
In grasping for so much, the Government have placed themselves in deeper difficulty. Had they been more measured about whom they actually wanted to catch, they would have received the whole-hearted support of the House. Now, however, the Bill is proceeding to the House of Lords under threat of a guillotine.
I shall make a point about this process because there may not be another opportunity. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will recall that the original 1889 Act—the first official secrets legislation—was introduced in the House by the Attorney-General. Anyone who has seen the performance of the Minister of State or the Home Secretary—I mean no disrespect—will appreciate why it was necessary for the Attorney-General to present such a complex legal matter to the House.
During our short debate on the possibility of the publication of works of fiction, there was a clear conflict over the legal interpretation of what the clause meant and

whether the word "or" should be "and"—or, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst), whether we wanted "one" or "two". At the end of the day, the House was united in thinking that there was no doubt that the clause would trigger the prosecution of Mr. Le Carré—[Interruption.]—apart from my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), who took an individual view. Those were legal matters, and with the best will in the world we cannot say that my hon. Friend the Minister of State has inspired us with the confidence to use him to represent our interests in court. [Interruption.] The Government Whip calls out, "Steady on," but on a question of one's liberty, one seeks good advice. We feel that we have been missing good advice on the meaning of
I intended to read through all the passages referred to by the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South and what he said about the Franks debate, because it is essentially to that that we have been returning. However, I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is familiar with the arguments. He was in the private office of the then Prime Minister—my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup and Old Bexley (Mr. Heath)—when the Franks committee was set up. He will have heard the drift of the arguments that the former Prime Minister adduced during the course of those debates. He may chuckle now, but only last week, he seemed extraordinarily respectful about some of the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup and Old Bexley.
Of course, I support amendment Nos. 6 and 7, but I also want to speak to Nos. 20, 21 and 22. Amendment No. 20 removes the word "prejudices" from clause 2(2)(a) and inserts the words "causes serious injury" in line with the general theme of the arguments from both sides of the House. Amendment No. 21 inserts the word "defence" before the word "tasks" in line 37 of clause 2(2)(a) so that it reads:
to carry out their defence tasks".
That is an important point but not a major one. The Army carries out ceremonial duties, and performs a range of duties about which the revelation of information could be said to be slightly damaging, but that is in no way related to the armed forces' defence capacity. Amendment No. 22 is to leave out the whole of clause 2(2)(b). There is concern that, under the Bill as drafted, information vital for us to improve our armed forces' capacity could be ruled "damaging".
A case in point was when, during the Falklands war, the boots used by the Army rendered a high proportion of the Welsh Guards unfit for service. To have revealed that information would have been a wonderful signal to the Argentines, who would have known when confronted with a platoon or regiment that they faced only two thirds of the expected forces. On the other hand, if we are prepared to conceal for ever defence information such as that, we could never put the pressure on an Administration to improve the Army's equipment or material. The gain to our armed forces' capacity could be much greater.

Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend talks lightly about ceremonial duties. I had a constituent who was murdered in the bandstand incident when the IRA blew him up and killed him. There is a definition of "harm". What harm my hon. Friend and those who support his amendment regard as acceptable before it becomes serious harm? I do not


understand the distinction that he makes between harm and serious harm. He must explain what harm he thinks is permissible.

Mr. Shepherd: I had hoped that the reference by the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South to the Franks report was a shorthand method, as it were, of dealing with that. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) claims that there is a definition of "harm" in the Bill. I am waiting for that definition to be spelt out. I have been looking for it. I have not found it in the Bill and if my hon. Friend will explain where it appears I will address my remarks to that. Part of the argument that we are making to the Government is designed to coax them into providing such a definition. Many of the harms that are said to exist are triggered off by, say, prejudice—that is why, at any rate as a pro-tern measure, I support Government amendment No. 86.

Mr. Baldry: The test of harm as an issue was canvassed thoroughly on Second Reading. Clearly, when one is talking about harm and serious harm—if my hon. Friend studies the Official Report of the Second Reading debate he will see that the issue was examined in detail—we go to my hon. Friend's definition of "damage" and "serious damage". Will he explain what damage he would allow without it becoming serious damage? He is arguing that it should be permissible to cause damage to the community so long as it is not serious damage.

Mr. Shepherd: On Second Reading we took the trouble to explain to my hon. Friend and to those who take his view exactly what the Government claimed was being done. We are simply trying to enact what the Government have said that the clause means. The Government rely on the description "serious damage" and "serious harm", and that is what we are trying to incorporate.

Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) has helped me on so many occasions that he will not object to my making a suggestion to him. Will he remind his hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) that in clause 2(2)(a) we at least know how the Government define "harm." It is the prevention and inhibition of the armed forces from doing anything that they might want to do, no matter how trivial or inconsequential. Whatever definition of "harm" is superior to that, it is difficult to think of one that is inferior to that, for it is using the word in a different way from its common usage.

Mr. Shepherd: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that assistance. The expression "serious injury" or "serious harm" has a place in our preface to all these debates—the Franks report—and it was linked with an internal level of classification which was understood and could be argued by counsel. It was related to serious injury to the interests of the nation and corresponded to secret documents encompassing exceptionally grave damage to the nation. Under these proposals, it is ultimately the jury who determine the level of harm and whether it is serious or trivial. After all, I could make an argument to a jury that to comment that uniforms were unattractive constituted damage to morale. The jury

would think that ridiculous and no serious prosecution could be mounted on it, but at the end of the day the jury will determine whether it falls within the criteria.

Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend may be aware of the Official Secrets Act case in 1916, R v. Crisp and Homewood, which was known as the War Office tailors and fly buttons case. The gist of the case was that a War Office tailor was prosecuted for disclosing the contract prices of fly buttons on uniforms, and was correctly prosecuted. Undoubtedly that was a damaging disclosure of commercial danger in the somewhat limited world of tailors and prices.
In answer to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), I can think of no clearer example of a definition of what might be called damaging from one somewhat narrow viewpoint, which is different from the serious injury and serious damage point to which we are referring in connection with the amendments.

Mr. Shepherd: There is the old test of the difference between damage and serious damage. If I stub my toe, I can say that that is damage. If I break my leg, I can say that it is serious damage. One can then argue about that.

Mr. Buchan: In a sense the word "damaging" is absolute. A damaging disclosure, even if it harms only to a slight degree, remains damaging. So in a literal, linguistic sense, "damaging" might be something extremely trivial. That is why we want to amend it.

Mr. Shepherd: That is the point that we have been trying to make across the Floor of the Committee—that a very low level, almost anything, could constitute a damage. Our fear is that something trivial which could be accepted as slightly damaging or a little damaging should be characterised as seriously damaging.
This Bill is linked with the Security Service Bill. The important difference is that we often legislate in a vacuum in this country, whereas other countries do not. A great advantage that we have with this piece of legislation is that while it has caused some difficulty for the Government, we are not legislating entirely in a vacuum. We have had a committee of inquiry through Lord Franks which has given us an education in the problems that arise.
The Government should accept the concept that serious injury is the appropriate test to put to a jury. It is on that basis that the Government should prosecute, rather than on the basis of damage or prejudice or something of a lesser level. This is criminal law. We want to be sure that we secure prosecutions, but we must also feel sure in our minds that the Government have gone through the mechanics of trying to weigh up the damage and are confident that when they go forward for a prosecution they are targeted rightly and that the law is not used frivolously in front of juries to undermine its integrity, as the 1911 Act undoubtedly was.

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) said that, in this context, we were legislating in a vacuum. That is not altogether so. We are legislating against a background of the public and international protection of fundamental rights and freedoms—the European convention on human rights, to which this country subscribes.
Much of our difficulty in comprehending the Home Secretary's approach to the amendment flows from the


fact that he is trying to present himself to two different audiences. Sometimes he is trying to persuade the Committee that he is at heart really a liberal individual, and his intervention in the speech of the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) was designed to suggest that the Bill was confining the law. On other occasions, the Home Secretary tries to emphasise that his prime duty must be the protection of the nation from the serious damage that could flow from the wrongful disclosure of official secrets.
In the context of this group of amendments, we are dealing with national defence. The Home Secretary appears to be trying to argue that the mere mention of the words "national defence" is sufficient to enable him to throw overboard whatever liberal instincts he may have and that he can raise the concern that if we do not accept precisely his language, we are by implication putting at risk the national interest in national security.
After the debate we have had today on the test of harm and after debates on earlier occasions, the Home Secretary has to address the question what is wrong with the Franks definition. Why is it not appropriate to incorporate that in the Bill? The language was considered carefully by the Franks committee. I acknowledge that it was considered in the context of the official classification but the official classification was used in the Franks committee report to describe the categories of information which it was felt should be protected by the criminal law. It was in a sense a code. It was to explain exactly what Franks was trying to catch by the criminal law.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) made the point with greater eloquence and precision. The point was that Franks was specific in the language. I do not see that the mere severing of the ministerial certificate from the process has anything to do with the language. The language is clear and unambiguous and seems to cover the position adequately.
I ask the Home Secretary to address the meaning of the language and to give us a clue why he thinks it is not appropriate, and why he has to produce the test of harm, as he has done for the whole sphere of defence. If he sticks with the language which he has proposed, including amendment No. 86, to replace "prejudices" by "damages", he is at serious risk of not doing what I think he wants to do, which is to square the legislation with the European convention on human rights. I give him the benefit of the doubt.
Let me take the right hon. Gentleman through the argument. The European convention on human rights, which under article 10(2) guarantees the right to freedom of expression, carries within it a limitation of that right, understandably and properly. There may be restrictions of that freedom of expression, such as
are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety".
I quote that extract, which is relevant to the question of defence.
That is not the end of the matter. Those words have been further interpreted by the European court, giving a much clearer understanding of what they are intended to cover, following two leading cases, the Handyside and Sunday Times cases, both of which involved this. Those cases provided that the test of whether the restriction is
necessary in a democratic society
is

whether the interference complained of corresponded to a pressing social need and whether it was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued".
7.45 pm
It follows that we are entitled to ask whether the language of clause 2 serves a legitimate aim, whether it seeks to meet a pressing social need and whether it is proportionate to that need. Those are the tests that would be applied if someone sought to take a case to the European court under the European convention. I put it to the Home Secretary that the damage provisions in regard to defence would not stand up. The point has been made so often in earler speeches that I need not repeat it at length. Unqualified damage, which can be in any given case extremely slight, cannot by definition reflect such a pressing social need as to justify interference with a right so fundamental as that of freedom of expression. At the very least, to satisfy the European convention rights, what is required is not just any damage but serious damage.
I pray that perhaps somewhat arcane argument in support of the amendments because it has not yet been adduced in the debate. I very much want our legislation to conform with our international obligations. I do not believe that it will unless the Home Secretary accepts the amendment.

Mr. Hurd: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of criticisms from that quarter of the existing law, which is much more comprehensive?

Mr. Maclennan: Yes, but this Bill, which will shortly be an Act with remarkably little stamp of Parliament upon it, will be the legislation which the European court will be called upon to interpret. I may have misunderstood the Home Secretary. The existing Act would certainly fall foul of the European court. The fact that it takes six or eight years to bring a matter to a decision is a major inhibition, which is why I and my right hon. Friends seek to incorporate the provisions in our domestic law. None the less, in giving effect to the provisions of the clause, the Home Secretary is not taking the opportunity to bring our domestic law into conformity with the provisions of public international law.

Mr. Gorst: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the argument he is using will be greatly reinforced when we discuss prior publication abroad? There will be absolutely no doubt that, even if it is a matter of national security, if it has already been published abroad, although the pre-publication may have been damaging, publication cannot have added to it. So I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman's argument is valid.

Mr. MacLennan: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst); I agree with him. Perhaps that point will be made again. There are a number of places in the legislation where it is hard to demonstrate that the restriction on freedom of information which it entails can possibly be justified in terms of the perceived damage that would flow. That is really the root of the matter.
One asks oneself why the Home Secretary stands out for this extremely broad, all-encompassing word 'damaging" when it would so obviously allow successful criminal prosecution for the most minuscule disclosure. I can only assume that it is because he wants to retain a provision that can be used in terrorism. He wants to be able, as it were,


to frighten those who are in any way connected with the armed forces into believing that they ought not to talk about what they do, however much it might benefit the public that they should. In fact, he is seeking almost to impose a duty of silence on those who are in possession of information relating to defence, because the damage test is so low that it cannot really limit the possibility of successful prosecution.
I reinforce what the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said about the duties of members of the armed services. Clause 2(2)(a) speaks of prejudicing
the capability of … the armed forces of the Crown to carry out their tasks".
Well, many of these tasks do not touch the security of the nation. The armed forces have representational roles and ceremonial roles, and, even in the normal course of events, they carry out tasks of a very humdrum kind that have nothing whatever to do with the defence of the nation, save for the fact that they happen to be being carried out by the armed services.

Mr. Baldry: The hon. Member, rather like my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), dismisses ceremonial tasks as if they were nothing. What does he say of those who clearly gave information to the IRA about the changing of the guard in Gibraltar? There could have been substantial loss of life in Gibraltar. The reality is that, sadly, there are in this world many people who wish to injure members of the armed forces, and it may well be that it is at ceremonial events that they are most vulnerable. To say that a ceremonial even is of no importance in this regard rather belittles the hon. Gentleman's argument.

Mr. Maclennan: I can answer that point most simply by saying that the hon. Gentleman's example concerns a course of action that would undoubtedly be caught by the form of words that we are proposing:
disclosure which would cause serious injury to the interests of the nation".
It does not matter to what sort of occasion, ceremonial or otherwise, the disclosure relates.

Dr. John Gilbert: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. The whole point about ceremonial events is that they are publicised.

Mr. Maclennan: The right hon. Gentleman speaks with the full authority of a former Defence Minister.
I think that the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) really has not addressed the fact that it matters not what the incident or the occasion—the test is whether or not there has been serious injury to the interests of the nation, and the circumstances the hon. Member describes would plainly fall within the amendment that we are advocating.
The Home Secretary has been speaking with two voices on this matter. Outside the House he has been speaking about serious damage. He has tried to convey to the world at large—as, indeed, it has to be said, he has done in earlier debates when we have not been focusing precisely on this issue—the impression that he is concerned only with serious damage. But the language in the Bill does not reflect what he has said. All that we are asking is that the Bill reflect his expressed intention. If it does not reflect his intention, it expresses a defence of a kind that will enable the prosecution to bring charges of criminal behaviour

carrying penalties of up to two years' imprisonment for what, by any objective test, would be seen as the most trivial of revelations.

Mr. Aitken: Although we are operating under the shadow of the guillotine, I think that we are performing a very valuable exercise in this line-by-line scrutiny, which, as the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) rightly reminded us, is all to do with language. The hon. Gentleman and others have covered so much of what is already familiar ground that I can be very brief and give just three reasons for my urging the Home Secretary to accept one or other of these "serious damage test" amendments.
First, I believe that this group of amendments really is the litmus test of the Government's good faith. We have heard from Member after Member about what the Government have said, and we have been given chapter and verse at the Dispatch Box, in earlier debates, and outside the House. Ministers have used phrases like "serious harm" and "serious damage"—not only my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary but also, most recently, two nights ago, the Leader of the House.
The Government have gone abroad publicising the notion that this Bill is all to do with occasions when the interests of the nation are in some way or other seriously damaged, yet this very phraseology is not in this ill-drafted, ill-thought-out clause. I ask my right hon. Friend to explain why the Government are willing to use words at the Dispatch Box and on platforms in the country, yet not put them in the Bill. We cannot have a situation in which one of Her Majesty's principal Ministers is prepared to be a lion at Cambridge university and a lion at the Dispatch Box, but a lamb when it comes to the Cabinet Committees that do the drafting of these Bills. He will be open to the charge of being "Mr. Facing Both Ways" if he cannot put into the Bill the very words that he and his colleagues have been using outside the House.
This word "damaging", which is in the Bill at the present time, is weak and unsatisfactory in terms of the criminal law. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) is the only person here who seems to think that it is not. One has only to look at how unsatisfactory it is in the civil law to start to recognise how much more unsatisfactory it is in the criminal law. In the civil law, of course, there are damages and damages. Consider, for example, recent libel awards. They stretch from £1 million in the case of Mr. Elton John v. The Sun down to derisory amounts—it used to be a farthing; now it may be £5—in small cases. There is huge scope for a jury in awarding damages.
If there is this wide scope in civil law, how dangerous would it be in the criminal law. Here we are talking about the liberty of an individual in the dock, on a serious criminal charge of disclosing information—information that is merely damaging, without any qualification or clear definition. On the civil liberties issue—giving a defendant a clear and adequate defence—we must do better than the word "damaging".
But I am not thinking only of the interests of defendants. I am not exactly a paid-up member of the royal society for the protection of Attorneys-General: nevertheless, I hope I have some genuine concern for the position of the Attorney-General or, in some cases, the Director of Public Prosecutions, in trying to operate this clause. As it stands, with this vague word "damaging", the


law is as long as the Attorney-General's foot, and almost anything can be argued, and no doubt will be argued, by departmental Ministers and departmental civil servants. People over-reacting to a disclosure will be able to say that is has been seriously damaging—or merely damaging, since the word "seriously" is not in the Bill.
There have been any number of cases through history in which the Attorney-General has been pushed by departmental pressures into prosecuting on the slenderest of grounds. I referred in an intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) to the case of R v. Crisp and Homewood, an ancient but still relevant case because it related to defence matters. That was the case of the War Office tailors who disclosed contract prices for fly buttons on uniforms. They were prosecuted for disclosing matters which I am sure that the War Office argued were damaging to the commercial interests of the War Office and the world of defence. Surely no one could seriously argue that the Bill is supposed to cover such a matter, yet it could perfectly well be interpreted that the word "damaging" unqualified was a mandate for more prosecutions of the type of R v. Crisp and Homewood.

8 pm

Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend says that "damaging" is unqualified. It is very much qualified by saying
damaging if … it prejudices the capability of … the armed forces … to carry out their tasks".
I fail to see how fly buttons could conceivably prejudice the capability of the armed forces to carry out their task.

Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend is on to a good point and I concede it. But let me take him a little further down the Bill. The definition of damaging enters territory that is still worrying. In line 41, damaging is defined as something which
jeopardises the interests of the United Kingdom abroad".
That is an extremely wide and vague definition.
Subsection (4) defines defence. Does a defence matter include defence sales? It clearly does. We are entering the world where one could disclose something that is damaging to defence commercial interests, and that is highly unsatisfactory. The Sunday Telegraph case in which I was involved was a defence matter in one sense, because it involved British arms sales to Nigeria. Under clause 2, it could perfectly well be argued that those who disclosed those matters did things that were damaging, in the sense that minor damage was caused by the embarrassment of diplomatic interests. It was covered by the broad definition of "defence" and "damaging". I am sure that this area needs tightening up and the best way in which to do so is by accepting the Opposition's amendment—which applies the "serious harm to the nation" test, or amendment No. 22 which simply knocks out line 41 onwards and makes many of my fears much less relevant.
At last the Government have at least made one concession. They have acknowleged that their drafting is less than perfect because here we see the first ever amendment to an Official Secrets Bill or Security Service Bill. The Home Secretary may star in a Bateman cartoon as the Home Office Minister who admitted that this parliamentary draftsmen were less than perfect. Amendment No. 86 takes out "prejudices" and inserts

"damages". We must give a hearty cheer for this moment of repentance, but the Home Secretary needs to repent more.
The word "damaging", unqualified as it stands, is inadequate to those who might face criminal charges under it. I hope that, even though I have long since given up any hope that Ministers will listen to the House of Commons, the other place will take these criticisms seriously and write into the Bill the kind of protection that was envisaged by the admirable Franks committee and insert the serious harm test.

Dr. Owen: I rise to support amendment No. 20 which would make line 36 read:
it causes serious injury to the capability of, or any part of, the armed forces of the Crown".
I think that I am right in saying that, since the Franks committee reported, whenever such issues have been discussed there has been near-unanimity that special provision should be made for defence information. It is also fair to say that, at all times, the phrase ''serious injury" has been accepted in all parts of the House as applying to defence. This is the first time that that phraseology has come under question.
When the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) was Home Secretary discussing the various drafts and Green Papers, there was one area in which there was no dispute—in terms of defence, it had to be serious injury.
There was always an argument, which we shall deal with when we debate the amendments to clause 3, over international affairs. That is a harder issue, because it deals with other Governments. We can argue whether the word "jeopardises" is strong enough. I put my name to the amendment that deals with that more to probe than to criticise. I would prefer "causes serious injury to', but I could live with the word "jeopardises". However, I do not think that I can live with the wording that the Home Secretary is now putting forward. I welcome "damages" because it is preferable to "prejudices", but it must have an additional word, and that should be "seriously".
Let me explain why by dealing with an area of considerable interest and some controversy. Nothing could be more central to Britain's defence capability than our nuclear deterrent. In 1969, when the issue of Polaris first came up, there was a question about whether the then warheads would be capable of penetrating the antiballistic missile defences around Moscow. The Ministry of Defence, then under a Labour Government, began to discuss whether it might be necessary to harden the warheads so that they could penetrate. That was considered at the time to be highly classified information. It was so classified that it was felt that we should not even discuss it with the Americans, so it had the classification "Top secret. United Kingdom eyes only".
When a Conservative Government came in in 1970, there was a long period during which they considered whether the anxieties about the penetration were so great that they should go for Poseidon and stop continuing with the Polaris A3 missile. Again, that was considered to be a matter of extremely important intelligence information and it was highly classified. I do not know its classification, because I did not see it, but I do not suppose that it was any different. The then Government made a decision that they would not buy Poseidon but would go ahead with a development to harden the system.

Mr. Rees: Chevaline.

Dr. Owen: I do not know whether that was its name at that time. It may well have been. There was a different code name for it in 1959. It was certainly code-named Chevaline in 1974 when a Labour Government took office. But what is not often realised is that the decision was made in secret by a Conservative Government. I have no objection to that. It was thought that it should be secret because we were not about to intimate to the Soviet Union that we did not think that our existing system could penetrate the Galosh defences around Moscow.
That decision then came before the Labour Cabinet and there was the correspondence between the right hon. Members for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) and for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) about what did or did not happen at the Cabinet meeting in November. That is an important issue. I am on the side of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent, if for no other reason than that I find Barbara Castle's diaries to be extremely accurate. I figure in a lot of them and her accuracy must be due to the fact that she had shorthand. I do not always agree with her conclusions, but in terms of an accurate description of what was going on in that period, I suspect that it will prove to be better than the Cabinet Secretary's, who did not take shorthand and had a tendency to make the minutes of the Cabinet meetings reflect the briefing that had gone to the relevant Ministers. More frequently, one used to read what one was meant to have said according to the briefing that one had been given rather than what one actually said. However, I leave all that, to come to a serious question.
That decision was reported to the Cabinet, as it was right to do, because at that time the cost was about £220 million. It was agreed by the Cabinet and the programme went forward. There was no secret about that, because it was a continuation of previous Conservative Government policy. However, all the discussions were conducted in secrecy. In 1977, the decision came up for review by a small group of Ministers, which has often been criticised since. The reason that the decision came up before a small group of Ministers was that it had already been taken. The cost escalation was considerable. At that time, the question was whether the programme should be cancelled. That was considered seriously, because the cost by then was £700 million and the cost eventually became £1 billion.
One of the major arguments used against cancellation was its effect on the capability of our nuclear deterrent. It was felt that if one came forward and announced that one was cancelling a programme on which one had spent £700 million and which had been started to improve the penetration of missiles, one would flag to everybody—and very visibly to the Soviet Union—that one's existing deterrent was not effective. Nobody argued more strongly against cancellation than the Ministry of Defence and the intelligence community. They argued powerfully that it was absurd to cancel the programme, having spent so much money on it.
I was in two minds about whether we should cancel the programme. The anti-ballistic missile treaty had been signed by then, we were dealing only with the rather inadequate Galosh system around Moscow and I did not believe in the Moscow criteria. However, I found the arguments against disclosure extremely powerful and they were arguments that finally persuaded me. There was nothing disreputable or discreditable about the

Government deciding—the decision was made for them at almost technical level, as most classifications are—that this classification should be highly secret and that disclosure would be deeply damaging.
There was a change of Government in 1979. At the end of 1979 and beginning of 1980, the then Secretary of State for Defence—now Lord Pym in another place—came to the House and suddenly announced not only that the project was near to completion—which he was entitled to do—but that the project was called Chevaline. I remember hearing that announcement at the time and being utterly staggered that he could do that. On what authorisation did Francis Pym suddenly announce the name of the project? It was one of the most highly classified secrets of the previous 10 or 11 years. I presume that he decided to declassify it himself, rather as Winston Churchill declassified documents at frequent intervals. Whenever I have written on defence, I have frequently declassified information before I make a judgment.
Lord Pym made a judgment. I believe that he did so for purely party political reasons to justify the decision to buy Trident missiles and to embarrass the Labour party for the fact that it had put the interests of this country first and had been ready at all times to modernise the deterrent—and it was right to do so. He made a cheap, party political point. In the process, he seriously damaged the principle of the integrity of the classification system and of the trust that had hitherto existed between Governments. That was a bad day for good government in this country.
However, Lord Pym made a judgment, and I presume that he would argue that he did not damage the capability of any part of the deterrent when he made that decision. A year before, however, if anybody had revealed Chevaline, a serious question would have been whether a prosecution should take place. That shows that two Governments, within a year, were taking completely different views on a serious question about capability.
8.15 pm
The reason for that story is that it is necessary for the House to make clear what it believes is "damage". Damage is in the eye of the beholder. We should be clear that we are concerned with more than just damage, that we are concerned with serious damage. I would have argued that it was seriously damaging at any time to reveal that project until it had been fully deployed. I could not be persuaded that it was right to announce it. If people wanted to speculate about it, that was reasonable, but in such areas, it had normally been the rule that one did not reveal the full modernisation of weapon systems. The point is that the Secretaries of State for Defence—Fred Mulley, a man of the utmost probity and distinction, who always put the defence of this country first, and Francis Pym, to whom I apply the same terms—made fundamentally different judgments on that question.
How is a jury to make up its mind on such questions if the best that the House of Commons can do about what we think are the criteria is to replace the word "prejudices" the capability with "damages" the capability? The vignette of history points in the direction of greater clarity about what is at issue. One can argue the case that, as the weapons system is deployed, the importance of revelations about its effectiveness and capacity diminish. The further one is from deployment, the more it is important to keep it secret. It is a moving situation.
There has been a great deal of cynicism, which reflects the difficulty of establishing criteria here. We must say to the Home Secretary—I know that he is more worthy than anybody else—that we do not have sufficient explanation here. The words that are used in the Home Secretary's explanation for the Bill in the House of Commons cannot be used in a court of law. One cannot call in evidence the fact that the Home Secretary said that "damaging" really means "seriously damaging". I am not a great lawyer; the Home Secretary has picked me up on that before. The words, therefore, in the Bill are very important. I hope that, having moved on prejudice, presumably having listened to the words of Sir Leon Brittan, he will now accept that if, as I believe will happen in the other place, the word "seriously" is inserted, it should not be removed.

Mr. Buchan: On the right hon. Gentleman's point about whether language spoken by the Home Secretary or anyone else can be called in aid, it cannot. The judge must interpret the law as it stands. The very fact that what is said in the House cannot strengthen a judgment means that if the clause is passed without the level of damage being qualified, it will be assumed it means any level of damage, however minor.

Dr. Owen: If that is the case, it does not fit easily with the rest of the clause. I must say to the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), who intervened and mentioned the tragic case of the ceremonial in Gibraltar, that there have equally been other ceremonials, such as the Horseguards incident, which would be covered by the words "loss of life." That is right and I do not think that any of us could object to that. The clause also refers to
injury to members of those forces or serious damage to the equipment or installations of those forces",
with which I have no problem at all. If we can use the phrase "serious damage to" for such matters, why on earth can we not use "serious damage" with regard to capability? The clause does not make sense.
In clause 3—I do not wish to prejudice any discussion on that clause—one sees the phrase:
it jeopardises the interests of the United Kingdom abroad".
Can we merely live with the words:
a disclosure is damaging if—
(a) it damages the capability of, or any part of, the armed forces of the Crown"?
That is not a sufficient test on which to have someone up on a criminal charge and have them imprisoned. Yet that is what we are talking about for a range of information and classifications on which, as I have already said, two successive Secretaries of State can take diametrically different views, when the capability of the defence of this country is involved.

Mr. Budgen: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that what will actually happen when this Bill becomes an Act is that it will not be applied even-handedly, but the Government of the day will make an arbitrary selection?

Dr. Owen: Yes, and the matter will go before a jury, and we shall then see what we saw in the Ponting case. A judge will give a direction to the jury in law which will be totally chucked out because most of the jurors will have enough sense to realise that they are not prepared to pass judgment that makes them look like asses. That is the danger.
We all know that the last Official Secrets Act was one of the worst Acts that this House has ever passed. We have all hung our heads in shame because it was rushed

through, because its interpretation was squalid, because all of us—in successive Governments—have kept it going for decades too long and because people have suffered gross injustice. However, such a Bill is now with us in this House. We have all been talking about historical examples, but we are probably on the path that is most likely to lead to the courts.
I feel strongly about clause 1 and about the small but important group of people who are employed in the security and intelligence services. I still think that we have got that provision wrong. Not providing a public interest defence for those people is a serious omission—we all know that defence information is being leaked all the time. This provision will come to court. It will be the issue on which people will go behind bars. There is a great feeling in the House that the current words are not sufficient. I hope that when the Home Secretary gets his way and moves that the word "prejudices" become "damages", he will accept that that is only a partial step and that we shall not rest until the word "seriously" precedes the word "damages".

Mr. Hugh Dykes: We have not only heard fascinating and subtle allusions and references to incidents 10 and even 20 years ago about major projects and the ways in which they ere eventually revealed; we have heard a whole raft of extremely persuasive speeches from hon. Members of all parties urging my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to accept this cluster of amendments.
I shall speak only briefly—I had not intended to speak—but I hope to make a helpful contribution. This is an opportunity for my right hon. Friend to accept the amendments and thus to do what he originally intended to do, which was to provide a firm, tangible definition of "serious harm" or "serious damage". That was manifestly his intention and that of his Department. I guess that that would be fully supported by the Law Officers, but one should not quote them without asking their permission or opinion—only they could express it.
The House will have been drawn by the comments of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) about the background of the European convention on human rights in relation to the clause to which he referred. The present wording of clause 2—and especially the main part that we are now considering—is a disgraceful piece of drafting. I apologise to my ministerial colleagues for using that strong adjective. Increasingly in recent years, and irrespective of party colour and Government, the House has been worried about sloppy drafting of all sorts of Bills arid the increasing tendency for such important measures to go through unamended because of the processes and pressures that we now face.
I say that against the worrying background that none of the provisions ever emanates from an outside committee of inquiry or investigation or a Royal Commission. We all dreaded Royal Commissions in the past because their deliberations took so long, but none of this legislation comes from such bodies. It all comes from internal governmental investigation, action, deliberation and suggestion. Because that process always emanates from internal Government sources, and because it reinforces the need for amendments to be made to reflect the will of the House, we are left with shoddy drafting. To use four


different verbs in clause 2, dealing with the harm aspect, is unacceptable. I hope that my right hon. Friend will reconsider that.
I feel strongly about removing the discretion of the quadrupartite basis of what we have been discussing today—the European convention on human rights—about the definition and basis of Franks, which is still held in the greatest respect by parliamentarians in this Chamber and in the Upper House, and by people outside as being the right basis on which to proceed, and about the amendments and the original terms and undertakings given in the White Paper and on Second Reading.
I do not agree with the reference of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry)—I hope he does not mind me referring to this—to the use of the word "harm", when he said that there is no way in which one can establish the right level of harm or damage because a ceremonial occasion might turn out to be a serious emergency causing injury and death. With respect, that was a distortion. My hon. Friend mixed up two totally separate manifestations of human action.
I hope that, with all those arguments having been deployed, if my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary catches your eye later, Sir Paul, he will reply to some of those serious comments. I cannot understand why, in this mature parliamentary system, where there is no outside corrective constitutional court system to say that the Government are overdoing it, are going too far or do not have a mandate or basis for their argument, the Government cannot from time to time accept a good suggestion, even if it comes from the Opposition, or an amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). I cannot understand why they will not accept his amendment and say that that is the basis on which they will proceed. Why is that regarded as a sign of weakness?
We are told nowadays that the regular meetings of the Cabinet are shorter and that most things happen in Cabinet or ministerial sub-committees and that there is little discussion because it wastes time. Then, when the measure comes to the Floor of the House, it is guillotined because, after all, it wastes time. Indeed, several hon. Members said that in Monday's debate on the guillotine motion. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) said that we were wasting time considering such matters. I am sure that my right hon. Friend—

Mr. Budgen: Some tribute should be paid to the Government. They took away the right to silence in Northern Ireland by order, in three hours, without any discussion. Therefore, the idea that the Government are prepared to waste time in such fruitless activities is a totally false allegation. There is no evidence that the Government seriously believe in parliamentary discussion.

Mr. Dykes: On careful and meticulous reflection of what my hon. Friend has just said, I feel ashamed because he is right. I misunderstood the whole basis on which this new era is unfolding.

Mr. Gorst: My hon. Friend may be completely wrong about this. Having heard the weight of the argument, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary may well, within a

matter of minutes, be about to concede what we have been arguing, thereby earning a tremendous amount of kudos for this Government's handling of the Bill.

Mr. Dykes: I take the extremely subtle hint given by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) that I should not go on for too long. I agree that there is now the chance of that happening, so the sooner my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary can address us the better.
I return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen). The interdiction on Sinn Fein spokesmen appearing on radio or television was announced in the media. That was the quintessential example of not wasting time. As a summit of not wasting time, it was extremely impressive.

Mr. Winnick: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that he is doing no service to the Home Secretary? If the Home Secretary conceded anything, it is likely that he would be dismissed within about a week. Does not the hon. Gentleman care about the Home Secretary's continuing career?

Mr. Dykes: I care in all ways, but I care above all about my right hon. Friend's justified respect as a liberal Conservative politician—although the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) asked, "Is he, or is he not?" Unless someone else, Sir Paul, catches your eye in the meantime, I think that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is about to rise to his feet to prove the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) wrong.

Mr. Hurd: I hope that we do not start from the proposition that this clause substantially reduces the weight of criminal law on soldiers, sailors, airmen and officials of the Ministry of Defence. There is a wide discretion about prosecution, and that discretion will be substantially narrowed. The argument is about whether it should be narrowed even further.
The amendments would alter the basic structure of the Bill. The Government's approach, which differs from that of the Franks committee, has been to select from the whole mass of Government information that which needs to be protected, and then to define what that is in statute on the basis of whether disclosure of that information could do serious damage to the public. I have said that over and over again, and many members of the Committee have quoted that and other points accurately. We are removing from the scope of the criminal law the wide discretion that the prosecuting authorities—not the Government—have, and putting it first on Parliament and then with jurors. We believe that the criminal law should apply to harm that is serious. That is why the winnowing process has been rigorous. It has winnowed out not just the trivia but the Budget secrets and the kind of Cabinet documents to which the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) referred. Those will no longer have the protection of the criminal law.
What is left to be covered by the Bill is a minority of the range of Government information at present protected by the law. Included in the Bill are such narrow sectors as interception warrants and other warrants, to which we shall come tomorrow, where we believe that disclosure per se is harmful—members of the Committee will want to argue about that—or in other sectors where we ask Parliament to set a test of actual harm. We do not believe


that within those sectors, which we are asking Parliament to select as sectors where disclosure can cause serious harm, there should be a test within a test. There should not be a subdivision within those sectors so that there is a subdivision of harm.

Mr. Rees: rose—

Mr. Hurd: I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman in a minute. First, I should like to develop this case, which is the core of the argument.
It is true that the Franks structure was different, but it would be hard to argue that, on balance and on the whole, it was a more liberal one. I dislike the word "liberal"—I have never claimed to be a liberal Home Secretary and I know that when people describe me as one, they will say in the next sentence how tyrannical and Fascist I am being. Nevertheless, it is hard to argue that the Franks structure is more open or liberal. One cannot pick out a particular building block from the Franks structure without reference to the building of which it is part. Franks recommended the test of serious injury or harm to the interests of the nation, but did so within a framework entirely different from that which we are suggesting. The essential link here is not with the classification of documents but with ministerial certificates.
Franks suggested that the range of sectors to be protected by the criminal law should extend across the board, including many sectors that are now to be liberated. He also suggested that the Minister should have the last word as to what was or was not serious damage. Our approach is different. It is to restrict drastically, compared with Franks, the range of information that can be protected, by eliminating whole sectors where it might be argued that there was serious damage but where we do not think that there could be, and to ask Parliament to define tests, leaving the jury to decide. The Franks philosophy would lead to a wider scope for the criminal law than we propose. It is hard to apply that philosophy and the wording about serious damage without taking that into account.
The reference by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) to our instructions for the jury was a little strange. It is a shame that neither my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) nor my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) is here, as both have chided me for showing a naive trust in juries and getting away from the system of ministerial certificates.

Mr. Gorst: I should be happy to withdraw my suggestion immediately if my right hon. Friend would only make a distinction between serious and ordinary damage.

Mr. Hurd: I have tried to explain our reasons for adopting the different approach of asking Parliament to define and not allowing the test of serious harm to apply across a much wider board.

Mr. Rees: I agree with much that the Home Secretary has said about the difference between the Franks recommendations, classification and so on, but we are talking about section 2, which concerns defence. The Franks report dealt specifically with this and said that material that would not cause serious damage should not be covered. Will the Home Secretary apply this to section 2 rather than to the wider aspects of the Bill?

Mr. Hurd: Under the Franks recommendations, the Secretary of State for Defence would be the judge of that. That is a substantially different view from ours.

Mr. Budgen: I genuinely disagree with some of my hon. Friends, and I admire my right hon. Friend's wish to submit these judgments to a jury, but is there not a danger that the decision to prosecute will be arbitrary and political? If the Government simply have the test of whether it is dangerous or damaging, rather than seriously so, when a particular Minister feels that his amour propre has been pricked he will be anxious to prosecute the very person responsible. Very often, less serious matters will be left unprosecuted. It is wrong that the criminal law should be subject to such a political decision.

Mr. Hurd: I have not often wished that my hon. Friend could become a Law Officer of the Crown, but I wish so now. As many hon. Members know, that is not the way in which decisions to prosecute are taken. We propose a system which is much less political and arbitrary than one in which the crucial document is the ministerial certificate. Ministers are out of the process once Parliament has approved the Bill.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: There is universal approval—apart from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), who will be tabling his own amendment—for reverting to the jury system. After all, cases arising under section 1, which is about espionage, treason and the most damaging sorts of information, have always been in front of the jury, so my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is reverting to a process that many of us believe is appropriate for our constitutional and legal arrangements. That is to be applauded, but why does he now back off and say that it follows from that that the test should be only "damage" and not "serious damage"? My right hon. Friend is not addressing himself to the distinction between the two.

Mr. Hurd: I am addressing myself to the innumerable comparisons with the Franks report, one of which was made by my hon. Friend.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) both mentioned the European convention on human rights, and we have looked into the matter. I do not believe that we shall run into difficulty on that, and if there is any, it will be much less than there is under the present law. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) was a little scathing. Like my hon. Friend the Minister of State and myself, he is a layman, but we take legal advice on legal matters and when that legal advice and what we say is challenged. we reinforce it as best we can. My hon. Friend was therefore a little harsh on that point.

Mr. Foot: The Home Secretary continues to refer to advice from the Law Officers. Does he not recall that time and again in this debate we have asked that the Law Officers should be here? I cannot recall when we have asked that the Law Officers be present to answer debates or discuss matters over which there is great confusion when they have not been summoned. Previous Administrations have always been prepared to summon them. Why have they not been summoned to these debates?

Mr. Hurd: I rest on what I said about the process by which Ministers obtain and then, if necessary, reinforce legal advice. The right hon. Gentleman may shake his head, but he has been in this position himself. He knows what happens and he knows all about the role of the Law Officers.

Mr. Higgins: I recall vividly an occasion when the late brother of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) appeared before a Finance Bill Committee. We had been up all night, but he had not. He delivered a long oration about the Law Officers' opinion. Surely there are many precedents for Law Officers giving a view. On a more substantive point, are we to understand that every time there is thought to be damage within the context of this clause, no matter how trivial, the prosecution will proceed?

Mr. Hurd: Of course not. My right hon. Friend was right in his first point. There are many precedents.

Mr. Hattersley: With regard to the question raised by the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), does the Home Secretary understand—because this is at the heart of our discussions—that we are not concerned with assurances that the Government will not prosecute? We are not here to read the Government's mind and intentions. We want a provision in the Bill to make trivial prosecutions impossible. The Home Secretary must consider that.

Mr. Hurd: I shall come to that.

Mr. Budgen: Are we to understand that the question whether a prosecution should take place will depend not on whether the case is serious, but on whether in an arbitrary or somewhat detached way the Attorney-General decides to prosecute?

Mr. Hurd: It will be carried out in the usual way. Whereas the prosecution authority has just about absolute discretion under the present law, under the terms of the Bill it will be restrained within the tests of harm.
The wording is very important. I do not deny that. It is right that ministerial statements and press releases are not relevant. We started with the word "prejudices", which is in the White Paper. The points that have been made suggest that that might be taken as setting the test of harm at a lower level than we intended. Government amendment No. 86 is intended to remove that concern and has been welcomed today. It is one of the few propositions before the Committee which has unanimous support.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) dealt with the point about trivia raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken). There was a prosecution in 1916 under the Official Secrets Act 1911. I cannot conceive of any demented prosecuting authority which would suppose that that case damaged the capability of the armed forces. I would say the same about the Smith's lawn example referred to by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley).
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook referred to corruption at a royal ordnance depot. I cannot understand how that revelation could damage the depot's capability. I can understand why the corruption could damage it, but we are concerned with the revelation. On the basis of the example, there would be no likelihood of the depot's work being disrupted or that it would be possible to prove that as a result of the disclosure the capability of any part of the

armed forces would be damaged, let alone prove that the person making the disclosure knew or had reasonable cause to believe that that would happen. It would be impossible for the prosecution to act in the trivial examples which have been suggested today.
The hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) raised a different point. I am sorry that I was slow—

Mr. Buchan: The Home Secretary certainly was slow.—

Mr. Hurd: —in teasing from him exactly what he was talking about. He explained himself very clearly after a while. In practice, he is doing less than justice to the arrangements between the Ministry of Defence and the local authorities in his area. Those arrangements ensure that the circumstances which he described could not occur. The contingency arrangements are available to the public and there is no question, as I understand it, of a leak being kept secret.

Mr. Buchan: The Home Secretary corrected me and said that Windscale was not a defence matter and therefore did not come under this clause. He is wrong. It was producing plutonium. That is why the leak was kept secret—so as not to offend the Americans. That falls foul of the next clause. The Home Secretary said that it could not occur, but it did. That was the point that I was trying to make. No assurances have suggested that if the leak occurred on the Clyde it would be made known. There is no reason to assume that. Most importantly, if we leave the definition unqualified and it is left to the Government to intervene and decide when a case should be brought, or if it is left to the law, the law will follow on a low level of intervention.

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman directed me away from Windscale to his worries about the Clyde. I have dealt with those. His local knowledge is greater than mine, but I am advised that the contingency arrangements and the public nature of those arrangements make the case that he describes impossible.
The hon. Member for Paisley, South was right about the Bill. I concede that it would not be possible to defend a disclosure which could damage the capability of the armed forces on the grounds that there was a wider public interest. That is perfectly true. That is the argument for a public interest defence which he deployed earlier. I do not believe that it is sensible or safe to allow damage to be done to the capability of the armed forces and then to argue later, once the damage has been done and is irreparable—once the horse is out of the stable—whether there was some other justification which the defence might argue. The harm would have been done past recall and the lawyers would be arguing whether there was justification.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook referred to my comments in Cambridge. We may have an opportunity to refer to that again in better order. I will gladly do so because my points were just. It is not right for the Committee to provide that harm, however drastic, could be done and later question whether the misconduct of other officials, however trivial, could be used as a justification. That is not safe or sensible.

Mr. Hattersley: The Home Secretary should begin to tell us what the Bill says rather than what he hopes it says. He refers to harm having been done beyond recall, but the


clause refers to harm that is likely to be done. It is an hypothesis of harm. The idea that harm has been done beyond recall is wrong. It is appalling for the Home Secretary to say that that appears in the Bill when it does not.

Mr. Hurd: I was harking back to the public interest defence, where it would be perfectly possible under the Opposition amendments for irreparable harm to be done before there was any question of justification.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills made an important point about the definition of the tasks of the armed forces. Although he did not make the point, we used language in the White Paper which is very similar, or perhaps identical, to his amendment. We tried to see whether we could use the concept of defence tasks in the definition of harm. The trouble is that we were advised that that would not ensure that the unauthorised disclosure of information about the capability of our armed forces in Northern Ireland could be protected. Our forces are not there defending the kingdom against external attack—they are properly and necessarily there in aid of the civil power. As a matter of law, it would not be clear that a reference to defence tasks, which might otherwise be a tempting answer, covered such a situation. I am sure that, for the reasons that have been given, the Committee would not want to accept an amendment which had that unintended effect.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland also put his finger on a point that the Committee should consider. We considered very carefully whether one could disentangle the different tasks of the armed forces, and separate their ceremonial, catering and certain other functions from the sharp end. We came to the conclusion that that could not be done sensibly, responsibly or coherently.

Mr. Maclennan: The right hon. Gentleman tries to dismiss as irrevelant or already taken care of my point concerning the European convention, but it does not have an escape clause dealing with the armed services. The convention deals with national security, territorial integrity and public safety—that is the "serious injury" that we are trying to import into the Bill. The Home Secretary says that he has thought about that aspect and has taken it into account. He does not have to rely on my interpretation of the convention. The view is widely held among academic and practising international lawyers that the Home Secretary has got it wrong.
The right hon. Gentleman says that he has taken advice, but I ask him to reconsider. A committee under the chairmanship of Lord Deedes specifically examined the matter, as did many international lawyers—including the late Paul Sieghart, who was a great expert in the matter. They all considered that the Bill's provisions are wrong and will land us back in the European court. The right hon. Gentleman constantly asked the Committee to accept his word that the Bill is all right, but it is not all right and anyone who considers the matter carefully knows that it is not.

Mr. Hurd: That is why I intervened to ask what news there was of trouble under the existing law. The hon. Gentleman admitted that he had none because it takes so long to get a case to court. I shall do what I told my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East that I would do: I will reinforce the advice that I have received and return to

the matter before the Bill leaves this House. I rest my case on the advice that I have received, which I believe to be correct.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) asked about the sale of defence equipment. Defence sales are not included in clause 2(4) and I do not think that they could be brought into it. My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) was worried about notification, but as he is not in his place it will be more sensible to write to him.
Listening to the historical analysis given by the right hon. Member for Devonport, I was puzzled. He told us the Chevaline story and explained how two Secretaries of State in different Governments, but within a reasonably short time of one another, took fundamentally different views of what they could properly authorise themselves to disclose. I do not see how that is relevant to clause 2 as that problem, dilemma and difference of judgment would have occurred whatever might have been the law relating to unauthorised disclosure.

Dr. Owen: The point is that clause 2(2)(a) uses the words:
prejudices the capability of, or of any part of, the armed forces".
So of course different judgments could be formed. But if the subsection used instead the words "seriously damages", that will not be so. Throughout his speech today, the Home Secretary has constantly invoked, as he has in speeches throughout the country and in press releases, the phrase "serious harm". Is he suggesting to the Committee that his new wording,
damages the capability of, or any part of, the armed forces",
is the same as "serious injury"? Is the right hon. Gentleman justifying that argument under the overall rubric, which he says he supports but refuses to write into the Bill, of serious injury?

Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman buttressed his case with a long and fascinating anecdote about Chevaline, but that concerned whether or not authorised information should have been authorised and has nothing to do with the Bill, which concerns unauthorised information, so the right hon. Gentleman's argument is irrelevant.
Running through these and many other amendments is an unbalanced approach to the Bill. It is dominated to the exclusion of other particulars by one particular type of case and one particular type of individual—the aggrieved or anxious public servant who wishes to disclose malpractice. We have heard about him time and again, day after day and hour after hour. Such individuals do exist from time to time, and may exist in the future. That is why we need safeguards, channels of complaint and staff counsellors—and they are being provided. But there has not been a word of acceptance, except from the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South and, most recently, from my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills of the damage that disclosure can do against protection of the citizen.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I shall be worried if my right hon. Friend sits down without explaining why it is that he has used all around the country, and in this House, the words "serious damage"—serious, serious, serious, yet in his response to the debate, he has not addressed himself to the question why the word "serious" cannot be used in the Bill.

Mr. Hurd: I spent the first five minutes of my response doing so. I shall not repeat that explanation, because I do not wish to hog the last few minutes of the debate. However, If my hon. Friend reads the first five minutes of my reply, he will find a careful analysis of why we did not follow up the road after Franks with the definition of serious damage.

Mr. Shepherd: But you said that you did follow Franks.

Mr. Hurd: No, we have never said that we followed Franks. We said that we asked Parliament—not the Government—to select areas where disclosure would be serious. We asked Parliament to define them and to include them in the Bill, so that a jury could decide on individual cases. That is the whole basis of our approach. The amendments deal with damaging the capability of those on whom the defence of the country rests. It is not a minor matter. A person disclosing such information can never be certain how much damage he will do. In our view—here we are talking about defence—it is enough that a disclosure made by a person knowingly seeking to damage the capability of the armed forces should attract, in this instance, the sanction of the criminal law. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was right to say that lives depend on the legislation—and lives should not be jeopardised by a loose definition.

Mr. Hattersley: I have four minutes in which to deal with the Home Secretary's attempts to answer the debate—to describe his speech in the most charitable light.
I emphasise again that, since Franks, there has been a major change in the way in which the law is to be implemented. We know that the certificate has gone, but that is not the issue for debate. The issue is that, according to clause 2, the Government can prosecute, with reasonable certainty of success, anyone who reveals information about defence matters that cause harm, as defined in the clause. The clause defines harm as anything that deflects the armed forces from carrying out whatever task they choose to carry out. The Home Secretary may argue that trivial matters deflecting the armed forces from carrying out their tasks will not be the subject of prosecution, but that is not an adequate reply to a debate in Parliament, when parliamentarians naturally want protection against such prosecutions written into the Bill.
If the right hon. Gentleman believes that the Ministry of Defence will not prosecute when others believe that prosecution would be appropriate, he misunderstands the mentality of the Ministry of Defence over the years. The hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) was over-generous in accepting the point made by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) that in the case of the quotation for fly buttons no prosecution would be possible because such a disclosure could not be said to harm the armed forces. I know from my years in the Ministry of Defence that somebody might say that the revelation itself undermined the morale of the armed forces, and that it left the armed forces open to ridicule. The reasons for prosecution will always be found if prosecution is possible. What the Home Secretary does not seem to understand is that we are not satisfied with assurances that it will not happen: we want the Bill to be specific in preventing trivial and unreasonable prosecutions.
The Home Secretary says that he cannot include the word "serious". He does not like the concept or the

definition. But the Bill is littered with examples of the word "serious" when it is convenient for the Government's purposes.
We are left with a final point which must, I think, be the last word before the untimely conclusion of our debate. The Government have persistently toured the country and said publicly—and the Home Secretary has slipped into the habit of implying it from time to time in debates in the House—that there is a serious test of harm: that the national interest is the criterion against which prosecutions are measured. That is not the case, and the right hon. Gentleman does himself and his cause no good by pretending one thing outside the Chamber and another inside it.
More important, because of the sloppy wording of the Bill, some prosecutions will be mounted and will hold the Government up to ridicule. Some of us will not lose many hours' sleep over that, but it is just possible that some who by normal standards are adjudged innocent will be convicted and sent to prison because of sloppy wording. It is no wonder that not one Member on either side of the Committee has spoken in favour of what the Home Secretary now proposes, and it is no wonder that there will be a substantial vote for the amendment. I am sure that the Home Secretary will get his own way thanks to his supine Back Benchers, but the House of Lords—if it understands its function—will want to lessen the damage that he is
doing.

Mr. Baldry: On a point of order, Sir Paul. The right hon. Gentleman has just—

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I am now required to put the Question.

It being Nine o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the order [13 February] and the resolution this day, to put the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 183, Noes 286.

DivisionNo.96]
[9.00 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Aitken, Jonathan
Clay, Bob


Allen, Graham
Clelland, David


Anderson, Donald
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Armstrong, Hilary
Cohen, Harry


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Coleman, Donald


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Corbett, Robin


Ashton, Joe
Cousins, Jim


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Crowther, Stan


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Cryer, Bob


Barron, Kevin
Cummings, John


Battle, John
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Beckett, Margaret
Cunningham, Dr John


Beith, A. J.
Darling, Alistair


Bell, Stuart
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Bermingham, Gerald
Dewar, Donald


Blair, Tony
Dixon, Don


Boateng, Paul
Dobson, Frank


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Buchan, Norman
Dykes, Hugh


Buckley, George J.
Eadie, Alexander


Caborn, Richard
Eastham, Ken


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Canavan, Dennis
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Cartwright, John
Fisher, Mark






Flannery, Martin
Martlew, Eric


Flynn, Paul
Maxton, John


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Meacher, Michael


Foster, Derek
Meale, Alan


Foulkes, George
Michael, Alun


Fraser, John
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Fyfe, Maria
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Galbraith, Sam
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Galloway, George
Morgan, Rhodri


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Mullin, Chris


George, Bruce
Nellist, Dave


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
O'Neill, Martin


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Golding, Mrs Llin
Parry, Robert


Gordon, Mildred
Patchett, Terry


Gorst, John
Pike, Peter L.


Gould, Bryan
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Graham, Thomas
Prescott, John


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Primarolo, Dawn


Harman, Ms Harriet
Randall, Stuart


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Haynes, Frank
Reid, Dr John


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Richardson, Jo


Heffer, Eric S.
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Hinchliffe, David
Robertson, George


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Hood, Jimmy
Rooker, Jeff


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Ruddock, Joan


Howells, Geraint
Salmond, Alex


Hoyle, Doug
Sedgemore, Brian


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Sheerman, Barry


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Ingram, Adam
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Janner, Greville
Short, Clare


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Sillars, Jim


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Skinner, Dennis


Kennedy, Charles
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Lamond, James
Snape, Peter


Leadbitter, Ted
Soley, Clive


Leighton, Ron
Spearing, Nigel


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Lewis, Terry
Strang, Gavin


Litherland, Robert
Straw, Jack


Livsey, Richard
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Loyden, Eddie
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McAllion, John
Vaz, Keith


McAvoy, Thomas
Wall, Pat


McCartney, Ian
Wareing, Robert N.


McFall, John
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


McKay, Allen (Barnstey West)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


McKelvey, William
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


McLeish, Henry
Wilson, Brian


Maclennan, Robert
Winnick, David


McNamara, Kevin
Wise, Mrs Audrey


McTaggart, Bob
Worthington, Tony


McWilliam, John
Wray, Jimmy


Madden, Max



Mahon, Mrs Alice
Tellers for the Ayes:


Marek, Dr John
Mr. Frank Cook and


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Mr. Nigel Griffiths.


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Alexander, Richard
Batiste, Spencer


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony


Amess, David
Bellingham, Henry


Amos, Alan
Bendall, Vivian


Arbuthnot, James
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Benyon, W.


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Bevan, David Gilroy


Aspinwall, Jack
Bitten, Rt Hon John


Atkins, Robert
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Atkinson, David
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Baldry, Tony
Bottomley, Peter





Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Bowis, John
Hayes, Jerry


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Hayward, Robert


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Heddle, John


Brazier, Julian
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Bright, Graham
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; CITs)
Hind, Kenneth


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Buck, Sir Antony
Holt, Richard


Burns, Simon
Hordern, Sir Peter


Burt, Alistair
Howard, Michael


Butcher, John
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Butler, Chris
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Butterfill, John
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Carrington, Matthew
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Carttiss, Michael
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Cash, William
Hunter, Andrew


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Chapman, Sydney
Irvine, Michael


Churchill, Mr
Irving, Charles


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'ttr S'n)
Jack, Michael


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Jackson, Robert


Colvin, Michael
Janman, Tim


Conway, Derek
Jessel, Toby


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Cope, Rt Hon John
Key, Robert


Couchman, James
Kilfedder, James


Cran, James
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Kirkhope, Timothy


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Knapman, Roger


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Day, Stephen
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Devlin, Tim
Knox, David


Dickens, Geoffrey
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Dicks, Terry
Lang, Ian


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Latham, Michael


Dunn, Bob
Lawrence, Ivan


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Evennett, David
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Fallon, Michael
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Favell, Tony
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lilley, Peter


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Lord, Michael


Fookes, Dame Janet
McCrindle, Robert


Forman, Nigel
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Forth, Eric
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Maclean, David


Franks, Cecil
McLoughlin, Patrick


Freeman, Roger
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


French, Douglas
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Gale, Roger
Madel, David


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Major, Rt Hon John


Glyn, Dr Alan
Malins, Humfrey


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Maples, John


Goodlad, Alastair
Marland, Paul


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gow, Ian
Mates, Michael


Gower, Sir Raymond
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Greenway, Harry (Eallng N)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Gregory, Conal
Miller, Sir Hal


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Miscampbell, Norman


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Ground, Patrick
Mitchell, Sir David


Grylls, Michael
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Monro, Sir Hector


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Morrison, Sir Charles


Hanley, Jeremy
Moss, Malcolm


Hannam, John
Moynihan, Hon Colin






Mudd, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Neale, Gerrard
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Nelson, Anthony
Steen, Anthony


Nicholls, Patrick
Stern, Michael


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Stevens, Lewis


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Norris, Steve
Stokes, Sir John


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Oppenheim, Phillip
Sumberg, David


Page, Richard
Summerson, Hugo


Paice, James
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Patnick, Irvine
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Pawsey, James
Temple-Morris, Peter


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Thorne, Neil


Portillo, Michael
Thornton, Malcolm


Powell, William (Corby)
Thurnham, Peter


Price, Sir David
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Raffan, Keith
Tredinnick, David


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Trotter, Neville


Rathbone, Tim
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Redwood, John
Viggers, Peter


Renton, Tim
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Rhodes James, Robert
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Riddick, Graham
Walden, George


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Waller, Gary


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Rost, Peter
Watts, John


Rowe, Andrew
Wells, Bowen


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Wheeler, John


Sackville, Hon Tom
Whitney, Ray


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Widdecombe, Ann


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wiggin, Jerry


Scott, Nicholas
Wilkinson, John


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wilshire, David


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Winterton, Nicholas


Shelton, Sir William
Wolfson, Mark


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Wood, Timothy


Shersby, Michael
Woodcock, Mike


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Yeo, Tim


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Younger, Rt Hon George


Speller, Tony



Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Tellers for the Noes:


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Mr. Tony Durant and


Squire, Robin
Mr. David Lightbown.

Question accordingly negatived.

The Chairman then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at Nine o'clock.

Amendment made: No. 86, in page 2, line 36, leave out 'prejudices' and insert 'damages'.—[Mr. John Patten.]

Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Mr. Corbett: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 3, line 19, leave out 'damaging disclosure' and insert
'disclosure which would cause serious injury to the interests of the nation'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 11, in page 3, line 28, leave out 'damaging' and insert
'one which would cause serious injury to the interests of the nation.'.

No. 26, in page 3, line 30, leave out 'jeopardises' and insert 'causes serious injury to'.

Mr. Corbett: This is another important part of the Bill which deals with information relating to other Governments and organisations. Earlier, the Home Secretary said, in the context of the test of serious injury, that the Government were not relying on the Franks report. I do not think that he meant that completely.
The Franks report—this is useful background information—says in paragraph 127 that a
democratic government should not use the plea of secrecy to hide from the people its basic aims and policies, in foreign any more than in domestic matters.
It also states—this harks back to the previous debate—that there should be a test of serious damage in relation to the disclosure of information given in confidence to this Government by other Governments and international organisations. We know from the way in which the Bill is drafted that those aims are not met.
The Franks report states in paragraph 126:
A great deal of what is going on between governments and in international organisations is public knowledge, contemporaneously or nearly so. Such knowledge serves the public interest, and is essential to an adequate measure of democratic control over the conduct of the country's foreign policy.
It is important that we keep both those statements made by Franks in the back of our minds during this debate.
The clause proposes an offence which is not even within the present Official Secrets Act. If the disclosure relates to an absolute offence, any repetition of the information here, however widely known it may be internationally, would be an offence. That is an aspect of the prior publication argument to which we shall come later. The Bill creates a new offence. It is difficult to see how sending British journalists to gaol for repeating what their overseas colleagues have already revealed will help international co-operation.
As in so many other parts of the Bill, all this turns upon the Government's refusal to acknowledge the need for a test of serious injury. There remains a suspicion on this and other clauses that the Government are concerned mainly with saving their face with other Governments or international organisations and, in the process, are denying access to information which cannot do any real damage.
The "any harm" test is that disclosure is likely to jeopardise the interests of the United Kingdom abroad. That is an exceptionally wide net. Clause 3(3) makes it clear that jeopardy may result not from any real or imagined damage but simply because there has been a breach of confidence regardless of its contents or nature. It is that to which we object. The Home Secretary was open on that point. On 21 December he told the House:
the fact that a confidence has been broken may jeopardise our interests abroad as much as the content of the information which has been disclosed."—[Official Report, 21 December 1988; Vol. 144, c. 460.]
That is what I meant when I said that the Government were more concerned with saving their face than with any possible or potential damage which the disclosure of even trivial information may bring about.
This means that, under the Bill, revealing unimportant information supplied to Britain in confidence would be an offence. Even more bizarrely, to do so would be an offence even if the information were not explicitly given in confidence. In other words, if the donor Government—if


that is the right way to describe them—did not say, "Keep this confidential, please," but the understanding was such that there was a reasonable expectation that it would be held in confidence, to reveal the information would still be an offence. While I understand that, how is any journalist to know whether confidence was explicitly or implicitly understood when the information was transferred from another Government or international organisation to this Government? He or she could not possibly know.
The subject matter of the information would be no guide. As we know, under this clause the breach of confidence is enough to risk prosecution. How could any journalist possibly know how an international organisation or foreign Government giving information to the British Government are likely to react to the publication of that information?
If there had been a series of leaks of other Governments' information, a final, on the face of it seemingly trivial—though none the less interesting—leak, might be the final straw that would provoke prosecution under this clause. The journalist or editor—or editorial lawyer, for that matter—would have no way of knowing that, and would remain uncertain, despite the Home Secretary's declaration in the White Paper that the intention behind reform of the Official Secrets Act was that everyone should be clear about the risks he was taking.
The Bill deals not with nominated categories of information but with information of any kind that is given in confidence. It is difficult to imagine a more secretive Government than this one, but I suppose that such a thing is possible. Under the Bill, the net covering information is too wide. It should be restricted to sensitive matters whose disclosure would cause serious injury, and it should not include the tons of paperwork floating endlessly out of Brussels.
We agree absolutely that, in high-level, confidential negotiations between Governments or between Governments and inernational organisations, it does no good to the chance of an agreement to engage in foghorn diplomacy. We acknowledge that, and no hon. Member would contest it. The Government, however, do not propose to cover only that sort of information. The clause applies to any paper anywhere that has been handed from one Government to another, in either stated or implied confidence.
The European Community is of enormous interest to us. It is unlike any other international organisation with which we deal, because it increasingly—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he is straying into the next group of amendments. I realise that it is not easy to separate the two groups as they are, to some degree, connected, but the remarks that he is now making should more properly be addressed to the next group of amendments.

Mr. Corbett: I am grateful to you, Sir Paul. You have put your finger on one of the problems of labouring under the guillotine—it means that we try to telescope our remarks. I shall take your advice.
Amendment No. 10 shows our disapproval of the Government's blunderbuss approach to information and documents exchanged between Governments.
This should be approached, as Franks recommended, in a more selective manner. We appreciate the need in

relations between Governments to keep certain things secret, but we support the Franks concept that this protection should apply only to leaks which are likely to cause serious injury to the public interest. That is the test we want applied. Because the Government refuse to make this distinction, the result could have draconian effects on the public in diminishing their right to oversee what is being done in their name in the sphere of foreign policy.

Mr. Budgen: Who should make the selection? I contend that in our democracy, selection should be made by the words of the legislature and not by the discretion of the Attorney-General, for his discretion should be exercised in a non-political way.
If at any time in the future we had a Prime Minister who prided himself or herself on having rejected consensus and who said that he or she did not wish to have too much discussion in Cabinet and who wanted most of all to demonstrate his or her overwhelming and dictatorial power over the Cabinet, it is possible than an Attorney-General might feel that the choice of the selection of who should be prosecuted might be dictated by political reasons.
That would lead to unpleasant consequences. We have already seen under the old legislation that a young man, one Jonathan Aitken, was prosecuted at the Old Bailey for alleged offences under the old Act, whereas a right hon. Gentleman, the late Hugh Fraser—who was, if the prosecution case was right, equally guilty of the offences—was not prosecuted. That was a decision of the Attorney-General.
If a future Prime Minister who rejected consensus and who decided under our unwritten constitution that the process of Cabinet government was not something with which a radical Prime Minister wished to have any truck, an Attorney-General might make selections.
I assert that our criminal law should be based on the proposition that everybody who has broken the law should be prosecuted. It should not be based on the proposition that there is wide and loose legislation which is then used selectively by the Attorney-General of the day. It is that last proposition on which the Government rest their case. They say, "We arc reasonable men. We shall always operate this legislation on a reasonable basis."
I must tell my right hon. and hon. Friends, although they might find this deeply disloyal of me, that we are riot legislating for Tory Governments. We are legislating for all Governments. We are not producing "Maggie's law". This is the law of the land, the law which is likely to be brought into effect in the future by a Labour, Communist, SDP or Liberal Government. We want to be absolutely certain that our citizens' rights are properly safeguarded under the law of the land. We are not here just to have a bland assertion by a Tory Member or by a Tory Home Secretary, speaking to his own kind, that we can be certain that we will approve of the discretion.

Mr. Ray Whitney: I accept that we must legislate against the awful possibility that a Government of a complexion which my hon. Friend described may one day sit on these Benches. Having allowed for that, would not my hon. Friend agree that the wording of the clause puts the onus on the court and that therefore it is the court


which will decide whether the national interest has been damaged by a damaging disclosure? Is not that the safeguard which my hon. Friend seeks?

Mr. Budgen: The safeguard that was relied upon in the last debate, which was unfortunately truncated because many of our hon. Friends wanted to get to bed early, was that all these matters would be dealt with by the Attorney-General of the day, who would be a Tory Attorney-General. Leaving the criminal law to the discretion of the Attorney-General is an unsafe way of proceeding. If the Committee believes that a narrower discretion should be vested in legislation and not in the Attorney-General, that would be a proper way of proceeding.

Mr. John Patten: There are in the Committee some distinguished right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who have served in the Foreign Office. I have never served in the Foreign Office. Perhaps we will have the benefit of their advice about international relations.
I will give the benefit of my advice to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), who suggested that there was a new offence in regard to foreign confidences. There is nothing which it is an offence to disclose under clause 3, as drafted, which it is not already an offence to disclose under section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911. The big difference, as expressed in the Bill, is that no disclosure is an offence under clause 3 unless the prosecution can prove that the test of harm can be met. I simply disagree with the hon. Gentleman on the point that he made.
On amendments Nos. 10 and 11 in the names of the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, I will not follow him on some of the points that he made about foreign confidences because you, Sir Paul, have already drawn it to the attention of the Committee that in the interests of good order and debate we must leave those issues for later amendments.
We have already discussed similar amendments to clause 2. As drafted, the amendments would not have any great effect on the Bill. They would simply insert declaratory words which would not affect the tests of harm as we have provided them. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already pointed that out in an earlier debate.
Amendment No. 26, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and other hon. Members, relates to a separate issue from the test of harm in clause 3(2)(a) and suggests that the test should be serious injury and not jeopardy. We have taken the proposition that the Bill must penalise disclosures of official information which cause a degree of harm so that the protection of the criminal law is required. Much of the debate on the last group of amendments revolved around the issue that my hon. Friend took up with the Secretary of State over harm and serious harm. I rest what I say on what my right hon. Friend said so clearly in the last debate.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I am charmed by that response, but we were frustrated because we did not get an explanation from the Home Secretary. We are still waiting for it. We hope that my hon. Friend will address his mind to the question of serious harm. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave us a diversion on Franks but did not

address himself to the issue of why, although he uses the word "serious", as does my hon. Friend, when talking about the matters in Committee and outside, he cannot incorporate it in the legislation. We still do not know the reason.

Mr. Patten: I think my right hon. Friend explained with admirable clarity in the first five minutes of his speech—

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Patten: I am just beginning to reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, and I will attempt my own suggestions about the level of harm. When I have given my explanation, I will give way, but I will give it in full if I may.
The Government would not be legislating on these matters if they did not think them sufficiently serious to require the protection of the criminal law. If we did not think that they were serious, we would not be suggesting that issues such as we have been discussing today should require the protection of the criminal law. That is the guiding principle that governs the intervention of the criminal law. It applies in this Bill as much as in anything else. As an interested layman, I have always understood that the criminal law comes into play when we need to protect the public interest from harm.

Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Patten: If I may, I will finish my argument, and then I will, of course, give way.
The general proposition must then be translated into terms that are relevant to the particular matters that the criminal law is to protect under a particular piece of legislation. I do not think that Parliament can just leave it to the jury to decide on culpability under the criminal law on the basis of some very general declaration of serious injury to the public interest. Parliament must say what it means. This Bill invites it to do so, and that is what my right hon. Friend was saying.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: If my hon. Friend casts his eye over the clause, he will see that it includes the words "seriously obstructs". If his criticism of what we are saying is wholly appropriate, when it comes to the Government's view on the matter it is also wholly appropriate. The Government are prepared to incorporate "seriously obstructs" in the Bill, but are not prepared to insert
would cause serious injury to the interests of the nation".Why?

Mr. Patten: That is where the difference is between jeopardising and seriously obstructing in terms of international relations. Serious obstruction would be some breakdown in international relations, caused by unauthorised disclosure, leading perhaps to a substantial number of our staff abroad being sent home. That would seriously obstruct the work of the service.

Mr. Budgen: The Government recommend to us that the legislation should be passed in a wide and loose form because it is subject to the discretion of the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General is a lawyer, and the Government say that all lawyers are wonderful and that all Attorneys-General are especially wonderful and are in no way subject to any of the vulgar political pressures to which lesser mortals may be subject.

Mr. Patten: I take my hon. Friend's point about the role of the Attorney-General. It is a very important point, and I will come to it specifically later in my speech, where, in any event, it seems to fit in.
I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) was right to say at any stage that my right hon. Friend had talked during the last debate about a widely or loosely drawn Bill. I do not think he will find those words anywhere in the Official Report; that was my hon. Friend's interpretation.

Sir Ian Gilmour: Of course, the Committee is extremely stupid—there is no question about that, because virtually every Member was quite unable to notice that my right hon. Friend had given an explanation why the Bill could refer to damage or injury but not to serious injury. I am still quite unable to understand my hon. Friend's explanation. As I understand it, what he is saying is that it is all right for the Government to say that the provision should refer to serious harm or serious injury, but that it is not all right to say that that is what the jury should think. That seems to me to be the distinction that he is seeking to draw. Will he, on reflection, agree that it is not a permissible distinction?

Mr. Patten: I do not think so. It will be up to the jury to make up its mind. Every hon. Member has recognised that that is a good thing. Let me try to answer my hon. Friend directly by suggesting that it is necessary to recognise the distinction between saying that damage to the capability of the armed forces is a serious matter—my right hon. Friend's mind may be on such a point since that was the great issue in previous debates—and saying that only serious damage to those services is serious. Both are matters for serious debate, and we have had serious and welcome debate this afternoon. But no one can say that the first point of view, to which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I adhere, is not coherent and legitimate even though it differs from the views of my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Mr. Foot: If the Minister is so clearly arguing, as he thinks to himself, that the word "seriously" was rightly omitted when we discussed the previous clause, does he agree that on the same logic the word could be removed from this clause? Would that alter the sense of the clause? If it would, why is it not in the other clause?

Mr. Patten: I have already explained that point in reply to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills.
I fear that I am straying a long way from the matter of international relations. Let me give an example to show why I think that the Government's provision is necessary and why the amendments would not be helpful. Britain might be relying on the support of a state in some international forum on whose deliberations our trading rights would in future depend. If there were an unauthorised leak of information, on the next occasion that we looked to that state for support we might look in vain. But at the time when the person who made the disclosure came to trial we might never have had an occasion for the state to show its hostility in a concrete fashion. All that it would be possible to show is that identifiable United Kingdom interests had been put at risk because they were jeopardised by disclosure. The prosecution, dealing with the amendment rather than

other matters, would have to show that both the interests and the risks were real, and it would be for the jury to decide whether it accepted the prosecution's evidence.
Here I come to the important point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West about the role of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. His role is specifically set out in clause 9, which we shall debate tomorrow. The answer to my hon. Friend's question is contained within the clause. 'The amendments do not define or relate sufficiently closely to the kind of harm that can arise in international relations, the nature of which means that it can sometimes be impossible to point to immediate and concrete harm. That is the difference between me and my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, and, indeed, between us and the Opposition. That is why the amendments cannot be accepted.

Sir Peter Blaker: My hon. Friend will agree that the phrase
the interests of the United Kingdom abroad
goes wide. Will he say a word about how those words are to be defined and who is to do the defining?

Mr. Patten: The United Kingdom's interests can be defined by reference to the concept of jeopardising. That is where we have to start—not with some general portmanteau definition of "interests", but with what damage can be caused to our interests. "Jeopardising our interests" is the right phrase to use because it properly reflects the possibly long-term but still real and serious nature of the harm which a disclosure in the area of international relations could cause Britain's interests abroad and which would be protected by the criminal law.
We are seeking a definition of our interests and I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) that it is not a question of other countries' interests or of trying to protect our dealings with other countries, as we suggested in the language of the White Paper. That is why we changed our point of view when we came to the Bill. In the Bill, the test is specific, narrow, clear and necessary to provide the proper degree of protection for our interests abroad, subject to the consent of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General in deciding whether a prosecution should go forward.

Mr. Budgen: In spite of all my jocularity and sarcasm, there is a serious point. The Attorney-General is not principally a politician; he is principally a Law Officer, who tries as best he can to administer the law in a non-political way. If we pass wide and unspecific legislation which gives wide and political discretion to the Attorney-General, we shall subject him to political criteria, which will damage his position. We are simply introducing the worst sort of legislation, which is wide and loose and will be subject to the worst type of political discretion in decisions on who should be prosecuted.

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend uses the words "wide" and "loose". At present, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has the ability to go far and wide over the range of potential prosecution for disclosure of information under the Official Secrets Act 1911.

Mr. Budgen: That will stop.

Mr. Patten: The Bill does not stop that. No hon. Member suggests that the protection of criminal law should be removed, but it is narrowed substantially according to the harm tests on the face of the Bill. That is a difference between my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West and myself and it was reflected in the explanation that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave earlier about harm and what was meant by "serious harm".

Mr. Maclennan: I shall be brief. The Minister has revealed that, in clause 3, he and the Government are seeking to alter the presumption in favour of the free flow of information to a presumption against the free flow of information. He has made life more difficult for journalists who report international affairs by refusing to accept that there should be a stringent harm test in the clause. Of course we all understand that matters pass between Governments which are highly sensitive and that the disclosure of highly sensitive information can cause serious injury to our international relations.
However, it is worth considering the attitude of other Governments to such disclosures and to the law on freedom of information. Many of the Governments with whom we have transactions have a much more liberal approach to the disclosure of information than the approach reflected in the Bill. In those circumstances, it is hard to see how such Governments could take offence from the disclosure of information that does not, on the face of it, do patent damage to our international relations. Amendment No. 10 is sensible, and I commend it to the Committee.

Mr. Gorst: I want to put to my hon. Friend the Minister of State and to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary a point about this amendment, which I should have liked to make in relation to the previous amendment—that what the Government are saying about the amendment is different from what it means. It means that they want to be able to prosecute marginally damaging cases—not merely inexcusable and seriously damaging ones. Otherwise, what difference does the use of the word "serious" make?
If I was going to understand anything from what the Home Secretary and the Minister of State have said, I would understand that they make no distinction. Therefore, I cannot understand why my right hon. Friend will not accept the word "serious". If there is a distinction, it must be because the Government are saying one thing but mean another. Therefore, they are taking powers under false pretences. That is why I cannot accept the Government's view on this, and why I shall not support them in the Lobby.

Mr. George Robertson: The Minister of State has raised an interesting issue, which is of considerable relevance to the country, not only to the House. The clause appears to be a catch-all. Although the Minister of State somewhat blandly says that it is up against a test of jeopardising the interests of the country, it leaves it wide open for anybody—presumably the Attorney-General—to make serious judgments, not only about domestic politics, but about international politics also.
For a start, there is the definition of "confidential" in clause 3(1)(b). Whose definition will it be? Will it be the Government's view of confidentiality or a foreign

Government's definition of confidentiality—in terms of the other state that is referred to in that paragraph? Precisely what are we talking about?
The year before last, I was entertained by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany to two days of an organised programme in Bonn, during which I met many Government officials and senior officers of the German Civil Service. They gave me extensive briefings about arms control, disarmament and foreign policy, especially in relation to the European Community. In those two days, I found out more about the British Government's view of various arms control negotiations than I had in five years of attempting to get such information from Ministers and officers of the diplomatic service in this country.
The fact is that the West German Government believe that that information should be freely in the public arena. The Federal Republic briefs its Opposition on a regular, often classified and always full basis in a way to which we have never become accustomed. They do not do so from any great altruism but because they believe that it is in the interests of the Federal Republic of Germany to do so. We must contrast the experience of other countries in the context of what happens in this country.
I am not making a partisan point this evening because I believe that something here is in the British national interest. When we go on to define clause 3(1)(b), we are in even muddier waters. It refers to
any confidential information, document or other article which was obtained from a State"—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he is now referring specifically to paragraph (b), which is the subject of the next group of amendments. This debate is concerned primarily with the issue of damaging disclosure.

Mr. Robertson: I accept your admonition, Sir Paul, but the general point that I hope to raise fits well within the scope of the amendment.
The problem here relates to organisations in this country for which we have become internationally noted, such as the Royal Institute of International Affairs, the International Institute for Strategic Studies, the Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies, the Ditchley Foundation, all of which are based in this country and attract a high level of participation from abroad. All of them are used to levels of disclosure by participants under what is commonly known as Chatham house rules, and all may now be affected by the catch-all provisions in the legislations.
If I am wrong, I hope that Ministers will be able to reassure us, because the view that I express has been expressed by others. The hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) and I both serve on the council of the Royal Institute of International Affairs and I sit on one of the senior committees of the Ditchley Foundation. I know that there is concern that the terms of the legislation might inhibit the free flow of discussion and of disclosure by Government servants, whether British or foreign, which has hitherto taken place in all these institutions. If I am wrong, I hope that the Minister will lay to rest these concerns. If I am right, something that is of enormous importance to Britain and to Britain's reputation abroad may be damaged.
Many of the discussions in such institutions take place within the arena of confidentiality described as "Chatham


house rules". I am sure that the Home Secretary, in a previous incarnation, took part in many of these discussions, where full and frank exchanges of information may take place.

Mr. John Patten: I am pleased to have a chance to say a word about the Chatham house rules, because I know that this concerns my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) as well. The Bill can have no effect on discussions under the Chatham house rules between British officials and others, because any officials who go to discussions at Ditchley, where the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) is on the council, or other forums, would be acting in accordance with their official duties and therefore would be disclosing information with authority.

Mr. Robertson: That is an interesting explanation, which I am sure we shall look at carefully. I wonder how any official who goes to any conference anywhere can seek prior authority. How could such blanket authority be obtained? How could there be frank discussion? Is the Minister saying that every senior official has this authority as part of his job?

Mr. Maclennan: The Minister appears to be saying that, if Mr. Clive Ponting had gone to Wilton park and made his disclosures there, he would not have been prosecuted. The Minister's answer is patent nonsense.

Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman hits the nail on the head. If the Minister is right, it is an interesting theory. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Wilton park, which is another of this range of institutions on which Britain's reputation abroad rests. I hope that, now that I have raised this point, and the Minister has made his point, the debate will move into more serious subjects.

Mr. Higgins: I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend the Minister said, and my impression was that he was saying that any official who goes in that capacity to a conference of the Ditchley Foundation or some similar organisation would not be in danger of being caught by clause 3 because he would be there on official business, regardless of what he might say.

Mr. John Patten: Read it tomorrow.

Mr. Higgins: My hon. Friend should take the opportunity either to say again what he said, or to say what he intended to say.

Mr. Patten: I shall repeat what I said. The officials who go to Ditchley, or wherever, would be acting in accordance with their official duty and would therefore be disclosing information with authority. Those were words that I used in the intervention, but perhaps I can go on to say more.
Since that information was communicated in confidence, it would continue to be protected under the present law. There is a difference between the present position and the proposals in the Bill. If a person to whom the information was confided decided to disclose it, it would be an offence in all circumstances under section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911. Under the terms of the Bill, and in relation to the point raised by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), such a disclosure would be an offence only if the prosecution could prove that the

disclosure caused or was likely to cause harm specified in clause 3 and the discloser knew that it would do that. That is a considerable improvement on the present position.

10 pm

Mr. Maclennan: The Minister's reply simply will not do. He seems to be overlooking clause 3(2)(b) which refers to a disclosure
of information or of a document or article which is such that its unauthorised disclosure would be likely to have any of those effects.
If Mr. Clive Ponting had decided to disclose documents at Wilton park which were likely to have those effects, the fact that he disclosed them at Wilton park would not protect him from prosecution.

Sir Peter Blaker: Will my hon. Friend the Minister reconsider his reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins)? My hon. Friend said that the official would be disclosing information in confidence. However, the Chatham house rules are not like that. They say that the information disclosed may be used by the people to whom it is given, but the author of the information—the donor of the information—may not be identified nor may the location where it was given. The information can be transmitted.

Mr. Patten: I understand Chatham house rules and I have enjoyed conversations under them. They are extremely valuable. I doubt whether my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing or I have ever been let down by conversations that we have had under those rules. The important point is that the official would be acting in accordance with his official duties and would be revealing, even in those discussions, only items which he knew that he had authority to reveal. If he transgressed, and if someone broke that confidence specifically and said that an official had said something which might be represented as damaging, there is the harm test specified in clause 3 to which I referred at some length earlier. That protection does not exist under section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911. The test is a considerable improvement.

Mr. Gorst: Suppose that the official gives information indiscreetly without realising it to someone who hears it and repeats it, how is he to know that he is covered by the legislation?

Mr. Maclennan: Or if he gives it maliciously?

Mr. Patten: Whether it is indiscreetly or maliciously, he may fall foul of the law. However, he is subject to the harm test in the Bill.

Mr. Budgen: I apologise for being stupid about this, but I do not suppose that the average juror is very much cleverer that the average Member of the House of Commons and jurors will have to decide this. Let us assume that there is a Ditchley discussion and a recipient of information proposes to disclose it widely. How does he know that the official is authorised to give the information? How is the recipient to know whether harm will be caused?

Mr. Patten: If he does not know, and the prosecution cannot prove that he did know, he is fully protected by clause 3.

Mr. Eric S. Heifer: On a point of order, Sir Paul. I should be grateful if the Minister would address the Committee, because when he turns to address his right hon. and hon. Friends we cannot hear him.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: I give the Minister another example to consider. My understanding of the words "any confidential information" in clause 3(1)(b) is that the imprimatur of confidentiality is placed on the document by the British Government, or by the Minister, and that that is the trigger. That also relates to amendment No. 10, and to the difference between the words "damaging disclosure" and
disclosure which would cause serious injury to the interests of the nation".
The confidentiality of a foreign document, for example, may be decided by a British Minister, and one has to accept his word for it that a document is confidential.
The example I give only came to light in the last few hours. On 10 January, the House was told by the Secretary of State for Transport, in a statement on the Lockerbie air disaster, that confidential information had been received from the United States, and that hundreds of such documents and warnings had been received. He said that they could not be disclosed because there were too many of them, and that there were various reasons why warnings were not passed on.
In the last few hours, it has been revealed that the British Government received only 16 warnings from the United States last year concerning possible security problems on aircraft, that the Federal Aviation Authority issued only 24 warnings during the whole of last year—and that that concerning flight PA 103 was No. 22. So the suggestion that there are hundreds of confidential security warnings held by the British Government is a myth, and it has been proved a lie.
The American Government did not say that the information in question was confidential—that claim was made by the Secretary of State—but under the Bill, an individual who discloses such information can be held to have made a damaging disclosure. That is because the Bill is drafted so widely, as Conservative Members said, that it leaves massive discretion in the hands of the Attorney-General—but if amendment No. 10 is accepted, such information could not be said, by any stretch of the imagination, to
cause serious injury to the interests of the nation.
If it transpires that information designated as being confidential by the British Government may not be held to be confidential by the foreign Government from whom it emanated, it alters the whole debate about damaging disclosures and its ability to
cause serious injury to the interests of the nation.
The example I give is not hypothetical, and I ask the Minister to address it when he concludes the debate.

Mr. Robertson: I intervene to remind my hon. Friend that the Minister asked the Committee to bear in mind the harm test—that the disclosure will be judged on the harm that it can cause. But when we are talking about international diplomacy, how on earth will harm be judged? That may be easy to substantiate in the domestic context, but in the short and long-term context of international diplomacy, the harm test is worse than useless and will not help.

Mr. Rooker: I cannot answer my hon. Friend's point, but the Minister can reply to both of us.

Mr. John Patten: With respect, I think that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) may be confusing arguments about items of information received in confidence—which are a matter for the next two groups of amendments—with what we are addressing on amendment No. 10: disclosure that would cause serious injury to the interests of the nation abroad in international relations. He seemed to be talking about what could and what could not be disclosed in this country.
I said at the outset of tonight's debate that one of the reasons for our objection to amendments Nos. 10 and 11 was that they would have no effect on the Bill. They simply insert declaratory words which will not affect the tests of harm that my right hon. Friend and I have suggested. I suspect, however, that the hon. Gentleman's argument may come up again in the debate on the next group of amendments, which I hope we shall get on with shortly.

Mr. Corbett: I do not want to delay the House, but we really cannot leave matters as they are. I am glad that the Government Chief Whip is in his place, because one of our problems is that every time that the Minister of State replies to points that have been made he causes more confusion than we started out with. I accept that we are the only ones who are confused and that the Home Secretary and the Minister are possessed of brilliant clarity; that is a cross that we will have to bear.
The Minister said that an official going to a conference at Ditchley or Wilton park—perhaps under Chatham house rules, and we all know what that means—will be authorised on occasion, because he is on official duty, to make disclosures that he would not otherwise be able to make. I cannot believe that the Minister means what he has said. That is a licence for any civil servant to say anything that is appropriate to the debate in question.
All that the official will know when he is invited to Wilton park, or wherever, is the area—roughly—that the debate will cover. He will not know what points other conference members will raise. Or will he be given a list and be told, "You can say this, this and this, but that is all. On no account must you say this, this and this"? I cannot believe that the Minister believes that prior and blanket authority should be given to any and every official present on official duty to say anything that he considers appropriate.

Mr. Gorst: What the hon. Gentleman is saying, I am sure, is that when something is revealed that is embarrassing to the Department concerned, there will be an unseemly internal argument about whether that official was authorised to reveal it, and as a result he will be put in considerable danger in the exercise of his duties.

Mr. Corbett: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. To put it another way, there will be some awfully black Monday mornings knocking about when officials have been at such conferences over the weekend.

Mr. Whitney: Those who oppose these propositions have to construct an entirely unrealistic scenario of a senior offical going off his rocker. Most senior officials well understand Chatham house rules, whether or not they are at Chatham house. They know the parameters. If, in the context that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) has suggested, an official does go off his rocker, there will indeed be a bad Monday morning, and so there should be.
Ultimately we must return to the limitation in the clause, which is a damaging disclosure. Surely all hon. Members agree that if a disclosure is damaging, it should be vulnerable to prosecution, but if, under Chatham house rules, the disclosure is protected and guarded in the sense that we all know, damage is not created. It is easy for the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) or my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North to create unrealities, but we are trying to deal with the real world.

Mr. Corbett: The hon. Gentleman simply does not understand and I am anxious to get on. Everyone who has been involved in conferences at Wilton park or wherever knows full well that to some extent once can sit there and think aloud. I do not mean that in any irresponsible manner; it is the nature of those discussions. One knows exactly who will be there. One receives a list beforehand of who will turn up. One knows the circumstances under which those conferences take place. The hon. Gentleman is no help to the Minister of State. The House accepts that there are categories of information—that is what the serious injury test is all about—which the Government should rightly protect, but the Minister is now saying that there are circumstances in which protection can be removed from people sent on those official errands. However, I shall leave the matter there unless the Minister provokes me.
10.15 pm
The Minister makes the best defence he can for using the word "jeopardise" rather than the concept of "serious injury" which the amendment seeks to import into the Bill. Have I understood the Minister properly? He keeps changing his mind. About a fortnight ago he was speaking about those famous nine tests of harm. He called them "specific harm tests". In a letter in The Observer this week, they changed from "specific harm tests" to "harm tests". That was not the accidental dropping of one word. There is a world of difference between "specific harm tests" and "harm tests". A harm test is implying that it could he a general test of harm. That is what the clause is all about.
I assume from the Minister's argument that he prefers the word "jeopardise" because it is a wider, lower test of harm. If that is so—this is the logic that keeps confusing us all—why, in line 31, instead of saying "seriously obstructs", does he not leave it as "obstructs"?
The Minister may think that he has explained it, and I acknowledge that he did have a go, but I could not follow his argument. I shall read it tomorrow, and I lay him a fiver bet that it will not be any clearer in print than it was when he said it. The argument is not that we want everything to hang out, as the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) suggests. We accept the need for such a provision, but we believe that the tests of damage which are to be applied should be set out as in the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 3, line 21, leave out from 'relations' to end of line 24.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 25, in page 3, line 24, at end insert
'listed in Schedule (International Organisations) to this Act'.
No. 82, in page 3, line 24, at end insert
'other than the European Community.'.

No. 27, in page 3, line 37, leave out subsection (3).
No. 28, in page 3, line 40, leave out from 'mentioned' to end of line 41.
No. 29, in page 4, line 2, after 'organisations' insert
'listed in Schedule (International Organisations) to this Act.'
No. 30, in page 4, line 4, after second 'to', insert 'such'.
No. 31, in page 4, line 6, after second 'with', insert 'such'.
No. 32, in page 4, line 6, at end insert
'but does not include any matter relating to the European Community or to the relations between the Community and the United Kingdom or other member States.'.
No. 43, in clause 13, page 10, line 41, leave out from 'means' to end of line 43 and insert
'an organisation listed in Schedule (International Organisations) to this Act.'.
No. 44, in clause 13, page 10, line 43, at end insert
'but does not include the European Community or any organ of it.'.
No. 45, in clause 13, page 11, line 1, leave out subsection (2).
No. 47, New Schedule (International Organisations)
'The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Interpol.'.

Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who has put so much effort into this important Bill and has spent many days and nights examining its implications, has kindly allowed me to move amendment No. 24 because I am anxious to refer to amendment No. 32, which I regard as extremely important.
I hope that hon. Members who have listened to the debate and have appreciated that there are important arguments on both sides will accept that clause 3 is special. There are implications for the Government to maintain security, but it is also important to ensure a relatively free flow of information. Clause 3 is different from the others in that it appears to create entirely new offences to deny the people of Britain information to which they are entitled about the legislative process.
Under clause 3 it would be an offence to disclose information supplied in confidence to Britain by another Government or by an international body. The offence is subject to a harm test that the disclosure is likely to jeopardise the interests of the United Kingdom abroad. Clause 3 makes it clear that such harm may result from the fact that a breach of confidence has simply occurred,
regardless of the contents or nature of the information involved.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said:
the prosecution may argue that the fact that a confidence has been broken may jeopardise our interests abroad as much as the content of the information which has been disclosed.
We are talking here about the embarrassment to the United Kingdom. We are not talking about the nature of the information. Thus, the disclosure of relatively unimportant or trivial information could be an offence if the information had been supplied to the United Kingdom in confidence.
The offence could occur even if Britain had not been specifically asked to treat the information as confidential, if the information had been supplied in circumstances in which the country or body supplying it could reasonably have expected it to be treated as such. In practice, all communications between Governments are normally assumed to be in confidence unless the country states otherwise.

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend used the word "embarrassed". I do not know how he can say that under the Bill a prosecution could occur simply because the information was embarrassing.

Mr. Taylor: I can do that by quoting the Home Secretary's own words. He said:
the prosecution may argue that the fact that a confidence has been broken may jeopardise our interests abroad as much as the content of the information which has been disclosed."—[Official Report, 21 December 1988; Vol. 144, c. 460.]
We are not talking about the nature of the information, but the fact that a disclosure has taken place which could jeopardise our country's relations with another. We may take the view that something completely trivial which has been disclosed is damaging to our relations with that country and could, in fact, jeopardise the country.

Mr Hurd: Indicated dissent.

Mr Taylor: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary shakes his head, and he is one of the most responsible, reasonable and kindly people in the Cabinet. it is all very well for him to shake his head, but what on earth was he saying on 21 December?

Mr. Greg Knight: Is not my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary making the point that the harm test would still apply? Under clause 3(2), the prosecution must show that a disclosure jeopardised our interests abroad? Is that not the point that needs to be made?

Mr. Taylor: I appeal to my hon. Friend to read clause 3(3). What the blazes does 3(3) say? It is a fact that there has unfortunately been a breach of confidence which could affect our relations. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made that abundantly clear. If it does not say that, what on earth does 3(3) mean?

Mr. Hurd: It means that for there to be a prosecution the prosecution must prove the harm test. Clause 3(2)(a) says:
it jeopardises the interests of the United Kingdom abroad, seriously obstructs the promotion or protection by the United Kingdom of those interests or endangers the safety of British citizens abroad".
Regardless of whether it is the contents or the fact of disclosure that we are talking about, it would have to pass the harm test. My hon. Friend has mentioned embarrassment, but that is not in it. He has also mentioned harming our relations with other countries, but that is not there either.

Mr. Taylor: If that is the case, what on earth do we need clause 3(3) for? I appeal to my right hon. Friend to read what is in his own clause. I hope that other hon. Members will look at it, too. It says:
Information or a document or article within subsection (1)(b) above may be regarded for the purposes of subsection 2(b) above as such that its unauthorised disclosure would be likely to have any of the effects there mentioned either by reason of the fact that it is confidential or by reason of its contents or nature.
We understand its content and nature. If, for example, someone knows something appalling—such as what the EEC is actually spending on food dumping—that would be damaging.
On the other hand, there is the second factor,
by reason of the fact that it is confidential".
Again, I believe that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is well aware that the disclosure of something which was confidential could have a prejudicial effect on

the interests of this country in relation to international organisations. I hope that my right hon. Friend will make it abundantly clear that clause 3(3) means something very special. It does not just mean that the information disclosed is damaging—it means that the disclosure of information which was not especially damaging could have a damaging effect on the relations between this country and others. If that is not the case, will he accept the amendment to remove subsection (3)?

Mr. Richard Shepherd: As my hon. Friend said, clause 3(3) says:
either by reason of the fact that it is confidential".
That triggers off subsection (2) (a) and (b). One can virtually bypass having to meet those criteria because one has to demonstrate that the information is confidential. That could satisfy the prosecution's case and, therefore, the jury. As we require clarity in this matter, which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is seeking to give us, it may be wise to accept the view held by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor).

Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend is right. Anyone who looks at the Bill will appreciate that we are passing laws which juries will have to interpret, and they cannot ignore clause 3(3). Even if we forget all that, and what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said on 21 December, we can still look at the White Paper, which is even more explicit. The argument in the White Paper maintains that the harm was not merely to Britain's ability to protect its interests in the country which supplied the information. It says:
such disclosure has a wider disruptive effect on international diplomacy. If it appears that this country is unwilling or unable to protect information given in confidence, it will not be entrusted with such information. The Government's ability to function effectively in international diplomacy and in relation to international organisations, and consequently its ability to protect and promote the country's interests will thereby be impaired . . .There is a wider damage to the standing of the United Kingdom in relation to all governments and international organisations.
First, we have the Home Secretary's speech, which seems to make it clear that we are concerned not just with the information but with the consequential damage. Secondly, we have clause 3(3) and thirdly we have the White Paper. Those three pieces of information say, in effect, that we are concerned about relations between Britain and other countries and international organisations. If someone went before a jury with those three pieces of information, that would be a lot to go on.
We are dealing with something serious and new in clause 3. It is different from most of the other provisions in the Bill in regard to which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will have seen me walking happily and confidently beside him into the Lobby. In those circumstances, I hope that he will pay particular attention to this clause.
Will my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary look at some of the special problems? For example, the Bill refers to
A person who is or has been a Crown servant".
What about people who have conflicting loyalties? Some of our former civil servants have become staff of the EEC in Brussels. The noble Lord Cockfield kindly reminds us from time to time that, the moment one moves to Brussels, obligations that one has to one's own country disappear and one takes on wider obligations to the European Community.
what is the position of a former civil servant who becomes a European civil servant? They do not last long—they seem to retire quickly on health grounds because it is more financially advantageous—but some of them are there for a while. They might disclose information which would be embarrassing to the United Kingdom but would serve the wider interests of the EEC. What does the Home Secretary suggest that someone in that position should do, bearing in mind that there is not just a conflict of loyalties but that the person would have signed a document saying that his responsibility was to the EEC?
How on earth can we accept clause 3 when we do not have the slightest idea what is meant by the phrase "international organisations"? We would like to know what that means. Does it mean the Cocoa Federation, the Tin Council, NATO, Interpol or, perhaps, the European Economic Community? That is crucial. Even if my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary forgets or chooses to ignore all the other arguments—there is not the same scope for intellectual freedom as we have from the Home Secretary on other Bills—I hope that he will at least be able to consider amendment No. 32 in the name of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and several of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
What about Euro-documents? Are they the product of an international organisation, or part of our judicial process? The Home Secretary, of all people, should know that the EEC is not an international organisation in the same way as the Tin Council is. It is a legislative body which passes laws that apply directly to the United Kingdom—even if we do not pass them here, we cannot ignore them. The Prime Minister might disagree with him, but Mr. Delors has said that 80 per cent. of our laws will be made in the EEC, not here. The EEC publishes a directive. If we are lucky, we can debate a motion to take note of it for an hour and a half, sometimes before and sometimes after the decision on it has already been taken—

Mr. Gorst: Would my hon. Friend include information that an MEP had obtained in a privileged way and revealed to the European Parliament?

Mr. Taylor: Certainly, former civil servants or Government contractors might find themselves in a difficult position.
To return to the EEC, are we to say that any information regarded by it or by our Government as confidential cannot be disclosed without incurring frightful penalties?

Mr. Greg Knight: I agree with many of my hon. Friend's views on the EEC. Most of the confidential information that might be received from the EEC would not satisfy the test of harm, but does my hon. Friend seriously contend that there are no circumstances in which harm could be caused? For example, if the EEC were negotiating a trade agreement with a non-member country, could not Britain's interests be harmed by disclosure?

Mr. Taylor: In such a case the nation's interests might be seriously damaged. To take a more topical example, after midnight tonight we are to debate a proposal which may or may not lead to a trade war with the United States. It has to do with the nasty hormones that some people want to put into meat—

Sir John Stradling Thomas: Do not talk rubbish.

Mr. Taylor: I am making an important point.

Sir John Stradling Thomas: Hormones are not nasty—they are natural.

Mr. Taylor: I apologise for being flippant, but my hon. Friend knows that I am making an important point. We know that the EEC carried out a study of the American use of hormones in cattle. Reports suggest that the study concluded that no harm ensues from that, but the results have never been published. Most hon. Members would like the report published, but apparently it came up with the wrong answer, so disclosure of its contents would be embarrassing and could cause harm or prejudice to the Government and others. Is it seriously suggested that it would be wrong or damaging to publish such information? These questions are important to the freedom of people and of this country.
May we be given a clearer idea of what an international organisation is? Will my right hon. Friend at least accept that the EEC is no international organisation but rather part of the law-making process of this country? It would be outrageous to include documents regarded by the EEC—or by us—as confidential in the category that we are discussing.
We are introducing offences which did not exist under previous legislation. We are faced with an open-ended situation by which the Government of the day will decide what are international organisations. The clause, if enacted, will create impossibilities for former civil servants who have accepted duties and obligations within international organisations which make laws for Britain. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will accept the amendment. Unamended, the clause will lead to the further nonsense of creating offences which are not offences by their nature but because of the consequences of disclosures in terms of relations between Britain and various international organisations.
This is perhaps the most serious part of the Bill. It will create totally unfair offences and massive confusion for people coming from abroad or from international organisations. It represents a dangerous power and it should not be given to any Government of any party. Under it, the Government of the day can declare an international organisation to he anything that they think fit, without definition and without specification. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will do something to sort out a serious and worrying part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Official Secrets Bill

Mr. Foot: In our debates on the Bill the Home Secretary has often claimed that the measure is restrictive and does not extend the area to which the consequences of the Official Secrets Act or other legislation of this type apply. Many hon. Members contest that view and believe that there are many other features of the Bill by which the Government are enlarging rather than reducing the operation of the Official Secrets Act. We do not say that there is no area where it is not reduced, but parts of the Bill introduced areas in which the Act has not previously operated.

Mr. Hurd: indicated dissent.

Mr. Foot: I will not go over some of the previous debates in which we have expressed our belief that the Government are extending the areas to which the Official Secrets Act may be applied. We think we have proved our case, for it has not been rejected by any substantial argument to the contrary by the Government. That has applied to our debates on confidentiality and other matters.
There cannot be any doubt but that by this part of the Bill, which the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) wants to amend, the area of operation is being extended.

Mr. Hurd: indicated dissent.

Mr. Foot: The right hon. Gentleman disagrees. He will have an opportunity to make his case.
Before the introduction of this measure, if an offence occurred in relations with our allies in terms of leakages of confidential or other information in negotiations in the Common Market, the Official Secrets Act could not be applied. By this clause, the Home Secretary is extending the operation of the Act, and the term "international organisation" is extremely wide.
By his intelligent amendment, the hon. Member for Southend, East is seeking to make at any rate this part of the Bill absolutely clear and to get any issue concerning our relations with the EEC—be it the Commission or other Common Market body—excluded from the operation of the Official Secrets Act.
If the Home Secretary claims, "We may still wish to look at our relations with the Commission or the Council and at how we are operating, and see that some restrictions are applied," he should take that step under separate legislation. It should be introduced under a suitable part of one of the Acts that the EEC occasionally introduces to cover our relations with the European Community. Some of us were bitterly opposed to the Single European Act, but if there is to be an alteration in the way in which discussions should take place with other European countries, it should be done under that form of legislation.
I hope that the Home Secretary will be willing to accept the amendment and others. I hope that he will consider afresh the ideas of incorporating in official secrets legislation some changes in relations between this Parliament and European organisations. The matter has been widely discussed in Parliament over many years. Every time we have had a debate there have been strong differences. I can understand what would have happened at the time of the Single European Act or, before that, the legislation which took us into the Common Market if there

had been proposals to introduce official secrets provisions. Many of us would have argued strongly against their inclusion. All the greater is the reason why the provisions should not be incorporated in a Bill of this character. The amendment would ensure that there would not be any doubt about the matter.
I have listened to the whole of the debate today, as I have listened to almost all the other debates on the Bill. The Home Secretary seems to take it amiss when I and others say that the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General should be present at these debates. When I put that to him a little while ago, he shook his head and said that I knew how these matters were dealt with. I do know. When I was Leader of the House, many representations were made to me and to those responsible for Government business about Law Officers being in attendance at debates. It is a good idea.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) has made the point several times that the Attorney-General will have considerable powers under the Bill. He will have fresh powers under this clause. I am not saying this against the present Attorney-General, but Attorneys-General have to be watched with suspicion. In the 18th century the Attorneys-General and the Law Officers were regarded often as the most corrupt members of the Administration. I am not saying that the same has applied recently. I do not use rough words like "corrupt" which the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) uses so readily and so aptly, but I do not wish to detract from the force of his intervention the other day. I note that the Home Secretary does not disagree with what his right hon. Friend says on these matters.
The Attorney-General will have many powers under the Bill. In some respects it is right that his powers should be limited. In some spheres they will be limited and in others they will be extended. They will be extended under clause 3. The choice as to whether there should be prosecutions will be enlarged. There have been modern examples from 20 or 30 years ago when the future of a Government has depended on whether a prosecution was brought by an Attorney-General. It happened in the case of the Labour Government of 1923. That Government fell because of the dispute in this House about the way in which an Attorney-General had sought to use his powers. These things can happen. I have seen many examples in more recent times, although I will not specify them, because that might be too tender for some.

Mr. Budgen: Was it not the exercise of the discretion of Sir Patrick Hastings, who was then Attorney-General, in the case of Mr. Campbell that led to the fall of that Government? I think I am right in saying that the question was whether proceedings should be instituted against a person who had Left-wing sympathies. Much controversy arose as a result of the Attorney-General's decision in that case.

Mr. Foot: Indeed, that is the case to which I was referring. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The Labour Government of 1923–24 fell primarily because of opposition in this House to the way in which the Attorney-General had used his authority. There was a great dispute about whether he had allowed his political


sympathies to influence the way in which he used that authority. The hon. Gentleman is quite right in what he has said in all his interventions.
Of course, there will be suspicions about the way in which the Attorney-General may use his powers, particularly if they are not so carefully defined as they might be. The hon. Gentleman is right also in saying that if Parliament does not provide a proper definition in legislation, the position of the Attorney-General is in some cases made the more invidious.
I can remember quite a few other cases over the past 20 or 30 years in which the position of the Attorney-General in respect of his advice in particular cases may have been of supreme political moment. In those circumstances, the Attorney-General often has a difficult choice to make. He has to take into account some of his political associations and the fact that he is a member of a Government. But he has to take account also of all these other questions.
In the interests of the Attorney-General, and to make the Bill effective, these matters must be defined as carefully as possible. But much will still be left to the versatility or the discretion of the Attorney-General. One cannot escape that, but, by providing proper definitions, one can limit the difficulty arising from such a state of affairs.
I come back to the Leader of the House—although, again, he has not troubled to attend this debate, I am sorry to say. He forced the guillotine, but he has not come along to listen to what is happening, and I think that is quite wrong. I am not in any way denigrating the way in which he makes his speeches, or anything like that, but there have been serious differences between the powerful arguments from both sides of the Committee and the replies from members of the Government Front Bench, whether from the Minister of State or from the Secretary of State himself.
We are told that this is the advice the Government have received on these legal questions. Those are almost the words that the Home Secretary used on two or three occasions. But that is not good enough; we are entitled to hear the Attorney-General himself speak to us on these matters.
I see that the Leader of the House is making one of his rare visits to the Chamber. We are glad to welcome him. I was referring to him a few minutes ago, and I am glad that my words reached him so swiftly. I hope that every time I summon him he will come so quickly. I only hope that he will take my message back via the Minister who is in charge of the Bill. We ought to have the Law Officers in attendance during these debates, partly because many matters are left to the discretion of the Attorney-General, and partly because we are discussing the whole question of when prosecutions will be brought, even if the Attorney-General will not himself make the final decision about such matters.
The case that the right hon. Gentleman has been making to us throughout the debate is, "We are reserving the power. It is going to be used intelligently. You don't have to worry too much if the Bill does not have the right words." To have those debates without the Law Officers being here to answer for the advice that they have given to the Cabinet is wrong. I do not say that because I have any great faith in Law Officers, or in judges. The judges are not very fine. Often they make great mistakes on many of these matters. One reason why we have to deal with the Bill now is that we cannot trust them.
Curiously enough, although it is a strange thing to say, having listened to the previous two or three debates, I have much more faith in the wisdom of the House of Commons than I have in those other bodies. There is much more common sense here, if only it could he released. The Home Secretary has plenty of common sense, if only he did not come to the Committee with his hands tied. If he came prepared to listen to what we had to say and to use his discretion about whether to accept an amendment, there would be an entirely different atmosphere. If the right hon. Gentleman had tried to deal with the Bill on that basis, we could have had an Official Secrets Act that would have been capable of standing up for quite a number of years. As it is, we shall have a complete abortion.
The right hon. Gentleman is about the most persuasive member of the Government Front Bench, but on all the occasions that he has risen to speak, he has been unable to persuade the Committee. Not once has he been able to meet the case made, not merely by Opposition Members, but by Tory Members. That is a travesty of discussion here, and I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has not approached the matter in an entirely different spirit.
However, there is always the eleventh hour. The right hon. Gentleman can still come back and say that he will make a concession to his hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East. He will not do that for any of his other hon. Friends, because they are miscreants. They have been voting against him whenever they have had the chance over the past few days, and all honour to them. I know how difficult it can be constantly to oppose one's party in the House of Commons. That is not at all easy. The hon. Members for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) and others have shown themselves to be truly honourable Members of the House, deserving great credit from the country for the way in which they have presented their case. They have presented it so well that they have caused deep offence to the Government.
However, the latest recruit is a youngster. He has not voted against the Government for at least the last three weeks. He comes along with a clean sheet to make his appeal to the Home Secretary, and if the right hon. Gentleman cannot respond to that he has no heart left in his body.

Sir Ian Gilmour: In his interesting speech earlier this evening, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary put his finger on what was wrong with the Bill. It is clear that he is comparing the Bill with the present legislation as though that legislation were fully operative. If it were, we would all agree that the Bill was a great improvement upon it, but we all know perfectly well that the great virtue of the present legislation is the fact that it is inoperative. In many respects—this is relevant to the new offence point—the Bill is inferior to what we have already because the Government are incapable of using it.
I agree with much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) said, although I do not share his views on the EEC. It is clear to me that clause 3 is far too wide and goes much too far in at least three respects.
I want to deal with the extraordinary approach to foreign affairs that is exhibited in the Bill. The clause would be fully appropriate to the days of the congress of Vienna and the Holy Alliance, when foreign affairs were purely a matter for the elite—a few people sitting about in


drawing rooms—when the press would have been prosecuted even more than they will be under this Bill and the public were not concerned with foreign affairs at all. That is the approach to foreign affairs reflected in clause 3.
Have the Government ever heard of Woodrow Wilson, or does our history begin only with Harold Wilson? It probably does. The ideal of Woodrow Wilson was open covenants, openly arrived at. That is utopian—there has to be secret diplomacy—but the idea of returning to the idea that almost any revelation or disclosure is wrong and will be damaging is absurd. It does the Government no credit to seek to hark back to foreign affairs as though they were a recondite matter. My right hon. Friend and I have served together in the Foreign Office and we know that most things are not secret, although some are. To try to make foreign affairs a closed conspiracy is ridiculous.
That is a general point. The particular point is in the words:
any … article relating to international relations".
That covers an enormous area. Clause 3(5) refers to "international organisations" but does not define them beyond describing them as "international organisations". Clause 3(2) says that a disclosure is "damaging" if it
jeopardises the interests of the United Kingdom abroad".
I agree with clause 3(2) when it says:
or endangers the safety of British citizens abroad".
That is perfectly specific and we would all agree with that, but what are the interests of the United Kingdom abroad?
In winding up the earlier debate, my hon. Friend the Minister said that one could define the public interest in terms of jeopardising it. That seems to be a non sequitur. What are the interests of the United Kingdom abroad? Does the clause mean the Government's interests? The definition is far too wide and reflects an attitude to foreign affairs that is wholly absurd. The great virtue is that, if the Government bring prosecutions under the clause, no sensible jury will have any hesitation in acquitting. I hope that the Government will try to make the clause slightly less absurd by accepting amendment No. 24.

Mr. Budgen: It is all very well saying, as in general I do, that the great safeguard of the Bill is that a jury will exercise its right to disregard what the judge says and to acquit even against the judge's summing up and the evidence, but that is a dangerous safeguard. It is an ultimate safeguard in our constitution, but it means that a jury would be saying that in a particular instance it intended to disregard what the legislature and the laws said. That is not something for which we should legislate lightly.

Sir Ian Gilmour: I agree. Clause 3 would be subject to the same ridicule as the current legislation, so one can fairly argue that we might as well have the present ridiculous legislation rather than new ridiculous legislation. I was merely expressing the pious hope that if the Bill is passed unamended juries will have the common sense to make it rather less silly than it is.

Mr. Budgen: It is all very well to have the occasional trial, such as that of Mr. Ponting, in which the judge plainly tells the jury that its duty under the law is to convict, but if almost everybody charged with an offence under the Bill is acquitted because the jury exercises its constitutional right, that is an attack on the rule of law.

That is a serious matter, and that is why it is important that we try to make the Bill tighter, more specific and not too much subject to the discretion of the Attorney-General.

11 pm

Mr. Maclennan: It is a novel experience to find myself on the same side of an argument as the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor). Since the occasion about 40 years ago when we stalemated each other at chess as schoolboys, we have been on opposite sides of the table. Although I do not share the hon. Gentleman's views about the Community, on this occasion he has put his finger on an extremely important aspect of the Bill. The Home Secretary owes the Committee a detailed explanation of the hon. Gentleman's points.
Although I have never shared the Home Secretary's view of the Bill, he has sought to present it as a narrowing of the criminal law in relation to official secrets. He has tried to argue that he is removing from the ambit of the criminal law large sections of our public administration. However, by including in this clause the reference to "international organisations" and confidential information obtained from them—as the Bill stands, that must include the European Community—he is bringing back, by the back door, the criminal law's coverage of wide areas of public administration that would otherwise be exempted from the criminal law.
The European Community now touches many aspects of our lives. One does not need to accept President Delors's view about the way it is going to recognise that agreements within the European Community touch on matters that do not seem in any way to fall within the other heads of importance contained in the Bill. One can refer, for example, to the question that has been much discussed in recent weeks—food safety. That has been very much a domestic issue, but it is extraordinary that revelations about the attitude of the French Government to possible retaliation against the British Government for their behaviour in respect of soft cheeses could be described as damaging in such a way that the criminal law should be invoked to protect Britain's interests.
I dissented slightly from the view that was expressed in more than one intervention that this clause widens the ambit of the criminal law beyond the Official Secrets Act, which the Bill replaces, but it certainly widens it a great deal beyond what the Home Secretary has sought to present it as doing. The Home Secretary referred to the six areas in which it is right to invoke the criminal law and sought to present them as relatively narrowly defined. He must understand that clause 3 is a catch-all clause that enables the threat of criminal prosecution to be waved over the heads of officials who are in any way connected with the international discussion of matters that are domestic within the European Community.
I hope that he will—

Mr. Greg Knight: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House why it is sensible to exclude all European Community information? Can he also deal with the point that I raised with my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) about when the European Community is conducting trade negotiations involving a country or countries outside the Community. Surely, in such cases, Britain's interests could be damaged.

Mr. Maclennan: Yes, it is perfectly possible that Britain's interests could be damaged, but the question is not whether they could be damaged but whether we require the criminal law to protect us from that potential damage. However, I do not think that the amendments are necessarily precisely the right ones to deal with the argument that I am advancing.

Mr. Hind: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maclennan: I shall complete my argument, because I think it is important.
There is a clear distinction to be drawn between our membership of the European Community and our membership of other international organisations. The European Community is part of our legislative process. If it is right that we should exclude from the ambit of our criminal law domestic agriculture matters, for example—that is an argument that the Home Secretary has advanced—why should such issues suddenly become protected by the criminal law if they are being discussed and decided within the organs of the European Community? That concept does not lie squarely with the Home Secretary's argument, which is that the Community should be regarded and included as an international organisation for the purposes of the Bill.
Our relations within the European Community are no longer international. Instead, they are essentially domestic. The treaty which we signed and acceded to has made us part of a decision-making process which is superior even to the processes of the House. I appreciate that there may be some problems in distinguishing between the European Community's activities that involve third countries and those that concern the United Kingdom, but when it comes to internal Community matters it seems that the Home Secretary should exclude those from the scope of the criminal law by means of the Bill. I hope that he will find it possible to agree that that is something that he will wish to consider as the Bill proceeds through this place and another place. As things stand, it seems that he has blown a gaping hole in his argument that the scope of the Official Secrets Act 1911 is narrowly being reduced as a result of his failure to exclude the European Communities.

Mr. Hurd: I agree that we are considering an important set of amendments. I say to the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) that nothing in the clause creates a new offence, nothing in it adds to the discretion of the prosecuting authorities, and nothing in it is not covered by section 2. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) tacitly conceded that by saying that a dead Act was better than a Bill of this sort.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan)—

Mr. Richard Shepherd: That goes to the heart of the matter. An argument resides in the fact that information received from sources abroad and given to journalists—clause 3 must be read in conjunction with clause 5, involving others who might be affected—might lead to the possibility of an offence. Information that is given—leaked or otherwise—in confidence from another organisation to

our own organisation and to newspapers, could give rise to an offence, although that, of course, is not the issue at the moment.
Secondly, we have added international organisations, which are undefined. I understood my right hon. Friend to say that this addition does not give rise to any new offences.

Mr. Hurd: I do not believe that it does. The matters covered by the clause are covered by section 2, but my right hon. Friend is right to say—this is part of the criticism of section 2—that it is difficult to have effective prosecutions under section 2 because, as has often been said, it is too wide and too weak.
There is a principle here which may well be as old as the congress of Vienna. I am not disputing that, but there is still some validity in the proposal. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham recalled our service together at the Foreign Office. I recall that he had a rather traditional view of these matters at that time, although I may be wrong. The traditional view in this respect is that our ability to exchange information in confidence with other countries and international organisations is fundamental to effective international relations. We need those relations and there is an element of trust. If we break the trust upon which international exchanges are often conducted, those interests can be put at risk. I emphasise the word "can". It is not automatic, but where that might happen is an area in which the criminal law can properly be engaged.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East referred to the White Paper. Of course we made this principle an absolute matter in the White Paper. We said that the criminal law could be visited on all such disclosures in confidence from foreign Governments or international organisations, but we were persuaded out of that in the debate on the White Paper, so my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East is right. We have made a substantial change between the White Paper and the Bill in that respect by saying that it is not an absolute offence and by introducing the test of harm. Of the three changes that we have made, that was the most substantial. All the changes were in the same opening-up direction, but that change between the White Pa per and the Bill was the most substantial.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: What on earth does clause 3(3) mean? Does that not say exactly what the White Paper says?

Mr. Hurd: I will come to that.
On reflection, I do not believe that every disclosure of confidential information is likely to be so harmful as to require the protection of the criminal law. That is why we introduced the test of harm.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East and my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills clearly believe that the effect of clause 3(3) is to bypass the harm tests and to create an absolute offence, but that is not so. Clause 3(3) says that the information may—I emphasise "may"—be regarded as meeting the harm test. It does not say that it "shall" be so regarded—the prosecution has to prove that. That is crucial. The harm test still exists and my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills is wrong. The prosecution still has to prove the specific harm, so it does not matter whether the prosecution rests its case on the contents of the disclosure


or on the argument that the disclosure causes a specific harm. The specific harm is not bypassed—the prosecution has to meet it in either case.
Clause 3(3) respects the harm test, so both my hon. Friends the Members for Southend, East and for Aldridge-Brownhills were wrong to say that we are recreating the absolute offence that we moved away from between the White Paper and the Bill. I have been hammering away at this point for a long time now, and I must admit that I have been hammering away to relatively little avail. I think that there is a case—although I am clearly advised that the courts would be under no difficulty about this matter—for me to look to see whether we can clarify this point, to make it absolutely clear in somewhat different wording that there is a specific harm test, whether the prosecution is relying on the contents of the disclosure or on the suggestion that the disclosure itself causes the specific harm.

Mr. Gorst: I ask my right hon. Friend to clarify another point relating to the EEC. If a disclosure passes the test of damage, and so on, but it subsequently emerges that information was available not only from a Whitehall source but from a source in Brussels, will it be a defence to say that the information came from a source not covered by the Official Secrets Act? I also ask my right hon. Friend to enlighten me as to precisely what will be the status of a Member of the European Parliament who raises matters in the arena of the European Parliament. He must surely be privileged, as we are, being an elected representative.

Mr. Hurd: As to my hon. Friend's first point, the prosecution has to prove that the disclosure was of British official information which passed the harm test or satisfied the test of the law. Obviously, it is not an offence under the Bill to disclose the secrets or the official information of other Governments. If the defendant could prove that he obtained the information that he disclosed from somewhere else, that is nothing to do with the Bill or with the jurisdiction of the British courts.
On my hon. Friend's second point, I hesitate to get into a debate on the privilege of MEPs, because that is not a subject on which I am an expert, although tomorrow we may hear a little more about the privilege of right hon. and hon. Members of this House. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend makes a valid point and I will inquire into it.

Mr. Budgen: My right hon. Friend mentions the test of harm. To whom will the harm be caused? Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that there was a revelation that there had been a gross over-claim for the number of olive trees in Sicily, and it was alleged that the Italians were conniving at a gross fraud by their nationals in relation to the common agricultural policy. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst), with his affection for the EEC, thinks that such a thing is most unlikely. Let us, however, make the unlikely assumption that the Italian state connived at that kind of fraud. If someone revealed that fraud, would it be considered harmful to the EEC, or to our relations with the EEC, or to the British national interest? Such matters, which my right hon. Friend talks about in a very general way, ought to be more closely defined.

Mr. Hurd: Such a disclosure would have to pass one of the tests of harm in the Bill. The prosecution would have to show that there was jeopardy to United Kingdom interests abroad. In the hypothetical case that my hon. Friend makes, he—or somebody else—would resolutely say that, on the contary, United Kingdom interests abroad were enhanced by disclosure of some hanky-panky over olive trees in Calabria, and there would be an exciting case. It is extraordinarily improbable that such a case would ever be brought. My hon. Friend's ingenuity seems to have deserted him on this occasion as he has not produced a particularly good argument.
Having given an assurance that we shall seek to clarify a point that has caused fairly continuous trouble, I re-emphasise that our intentions are clear and we are advised that our wording is absolutely clear. Nevertheless, we shall see if we can improve upon it.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of harm or damage in relation to international organisations and to the EEC in particular, I will give him another example to consider. In the Council of Ministers, there is a rule of notional confidentiality. There is no specific account, such as Hansard, of what goes on there. It could be construed that any revelation of a British Minister's approach within the Council of Ministers would harm British interests.
In the newspapers recently, there has been a dispute between one ex-Minister and another Minister over what happened in the Council. Is such a revelation really damaging to British interests as a whole, even if it shows that the Government are not doing what they say that they are doing? Is that not an example of how some ambivalence can arise in respect of the damage done by a revelation within the EEC, and proof of why such a provision should not be in the Bill?

Mr. Hurd: That seems even more far-fetched. I repeat that there could not conceivably be a prosecution under the Bill on the ground of embarrasment to a British Minister. That is not a criterion. [Interruption.] This is part of the point of the legislation. We are depoliticising the process by inserting the test of harm and leaving the decision to a jury. That, in practice, may be one of the main effects of the Bill. I do not think that the ordinary sort of argument about what happened in the Council of Ministers, with which the hon. Gentleman and I are both familiar—a healthy exchange of accuracies and inaccuracies—has anything to do with the Bill.
The question has been raised—not very forcefully this evening, but it has been raised outside—of what constitutes an international organisation. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East was scornful about what he regards as a tautology in clause 13(1), but it clears up a point that has been of concern to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins). There has been a certain amount of anxiety that we might include organisations that were not intergovernmental. Clause 13(1) makes it clear that that is not the case. Here, again, I am advised that a little further clarification would be desirable, although it is a tiny point. I do not expect to gain any great popularity in this regard, but I think that there is a case for a small amendment to put the matter beyond any possible doubt.

Mr. Rooker: In any further consideration of clause 13(1), will the Government take the opportunity to draw


a distinction between the European Commission and the European Parliament? It could be argued that because the Parliament is an elected Assembly it is not the Government who are represented there, so it does not fall under the definition in clause 13(1) of an international organisation—the Parliament, as opposed to the Commission.

Mr. Corbett: It is an "organ of".

Mr. Rooker: I realise that, but the fact remains that the state is not a member of the Parliament. Freely elected people representing this country and other nations are its members.

Mr. Hurd: I should like to examine the hon. Gentleman's specific point about the European Parliament. He put it concisely, and although I do not wish to concede it I shall certainly give it consideration.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: Will my right hon. Friend give way? I would like a point to be clarified.

Mr. Hurd: If my hon. Friend will bide his time for a short while, I will certainly give way.
Having listened for many years to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East on the subject of Europe, I always thought that he regarded it as an international organisation and felt that the further at arm's length we could keep it, the better. But the drift today was different. I think that, partly for the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight), it would be wrong and, indeed, quixotic to exclude an international organisation—which the EC certainly is—simply because we have more intimate dealings within it than within other international organisations to which we belong. The Bill will cover EC information, not to protect the interests of the Community but to protect this country's interests abroad.
The information that we receive from the European Community is, of course, of great volume, as all who serve on the Select Committee know, but it falls into three main categories. The bulk of it is not confidential, and is therefore not received in confidence and is completely outside the scope of the Bill. The disclosure of much that we do receive in confidence would, under the White Paper scheme, have been an absolute offence. It was partly because of that that we were persuaded to drop the argument. There is now a harm test, and I think—although I cannot be specific—that the bulk of information received in confidence from the EC would fail that test.
I do not agree with the point that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland majored on—that in some way we are clawing back a great deal of information which would be liberated from the criminal law under the other provisions of the Bill. That cannot be so if he accepts what I have said about clause 3(3) and the harm test. For instance, the hon. Gentleman mentioned food safety. There might well be EC documents about food safety, which is a matter for discussion by the EC. It is conceivable that we might receive certain documents in confidence—I am not referring to any particular documents—and it might not be a good idea for civil servants to disclose the contents of such documents, but I shall not go into that.
If a document dealing with the issue of a Cabinet paper is clearly outside the scope of the Bill, I do not understand how an EC document would pass the harm test relating to

United Kingdom interests abroad. Although the hon. Gentleman might be able to produce hypothetical examples where that might happen, the bulk of EC documents and discussions deal with domestic matters such as transport, food safety, and so on, and there is no way in which they would pass the harm test in the Bill.

Mr. Higgins: My right hon. Friend has already agreed to find out whether the European Parliament would be classified as an international organisation under the Bill. I find it somewhat extraordinary that that point has not already been dealt with. What is his view of the status of the European Commission?

Mr. Hurd: I am clear that the European Parliament is within the scope of the Bill as drafted, but I have promised to look at the matter in the light of what has been said. Clearly, the European Commission is and should he within the scope of the Bill. Returning to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North, the Commission frequently negotiates with other states on behalf of the European Community. That is one reason why it should be included in the Bill.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is my right hon. Friend saying that the European Commission is to be classified as an international organisation under the Bill, despite the definition in clause 13(2) which refers to member states? Surely that cannot be the case. If it is, what is the position of a former British civil servant who is employed by the Commission as a European civil servant and obviously has loyalties there, who may wish to reveal something that could be prejudicial to Britain but is in the interests of the European Community?

Mr. Hurd: On the first point, the European Commission is clearly an organ of the European Community, which is clearly an international organisation. Bodies such as the NATO secretariat and SACEUR are comparable in that they are central organs of an international organisation and therefore are and should be within the Bill. My hon. Friend asked me a specific question about former Crown staff. A former Crown servant working for the Commission in Brussels remains covered by the provisions, of the Bill in regard to information that he acquired while he was a Crown servant here—that is the position under the present law and under the Bill—but information that he acquires through his work for the Commission is not covered by the Bill for the reasons that I gave earlier.
I hope that I have covered the points raised in the debate and in the amendments. I believe that the principles of clause 3 as drafted are correct. I do not accept the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing that the basic principle has been eroded by the passage of time and by the conduct and progress of international relations. There is a principle that needs to be safeguarded and that is worth the retention of some intervention by the criminal law—I say some intervention because of the harm test. In regard to the difficult point about the harm test—the fact that the prosecution might argue that the disclosure itself is doing the harm—which has been the kernel of the debate, I have undertaken to re-examine the possibilities of clarification and to reconsider one minor point. I hope that in the light of those replies and those undertakings the Committee will feel that we have not done too badly.

Mr. Alistair Darling: The Secretary of State appears to be telling us that the provisions of this clause are not new and, because section 2 of the 1911 Act covers just about everything, this must be an improvement. However, clause 3 appears to be breaking new ground. It singles out international relations—a very wide definition of international relations—for a new form of secrecy.
11.30 pm
As the Secretary of State, for the first time this evening, has been good enough to say that he is prepared to look again at certain points, I suppose that we should welcome that. It is in that spirit that I press him further in the hope that he will look at them more than he has agreed to do.
Clause 3 illustrates the real difficulty between the national interest and the Government interest, because the two appear to be confused. What is it that we are trying to stop? The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) said that the Secretary of State appeared to have a rather quaint view of international relations. Many of us might subscribe to the view that we should safeguard those bits of information which might be important to defence or the prevention of criminal activities. However, this clause goes much further than that.
Let us begin by looking at clause 3(2) to see what it is that is damaging. It says that a disclosure is damaging if
it jeopardises the interests of the United Kingdom abroad, seriously obstructs the promotion or protection … of those interests".
That is very wide. Indeed, clause 3(2)(b) provides that any disclosure would be damaging if it was likely to do those things. I wish that the Secretary of State would stop using the term "harm test," because he makes it sound as though there was some sort of harm test. One can see from clause 3(2) that it is easy to transgress the terms of that clause so that an individual could be brought within the scope of it and so be liable to prosecution.
We are told in clause 3(1)(a) that a damaging disclosure is
any information, document or other article relating to international relations".
International relations are not defined in a narrow way, but are unspecific. More than that, in subsection (1)(b) we are told that a damaging disclosure can be
any confidential information, document or other article which was obtained from a State other than the United Kingdom or an international organisation.
Whether the Home Secretary likes it or not, that includes the EEC.
What is confidential information? It has not been referred to very much so far.

Mr. Hind: The hon. Gentleman has missed out the most important point. He should read the last part of clause 3(1), which refers to
information or a document or article which is or has been in his possession by virtue of his position as a Crown servant or government contractor"—
in other words, documents which have come into his possession as a consequence of his position, and in confidence. That is the purpose behind it.

Mr. Darling: I am not sure how that assists us.
If one looks at clause 3(6) for a definition of confidentiality, one sees, among other things, that it says:

while the circumstances in which it was obtained make it reasonable for the State or organisation to expect that it would be so held".
We can see exactly what would happen. If someone suddenly revealed that something untoward was going on, all that would be necessary would be for an official, a Government or an agency to say, "We expected that to be confidential," and it would then be brought within the terms of this clause. That is thoroughly undesirable.
The Secretary of State says that clause 3(3), which must be one of the most clumsily drafted clauses in this Bill—that takes some beating when we consider some of the other clauses which we have discussed—is a guide to the prosecutor. He says that any information, article or document within clause 3(1)(b)—that is, whether it is confidential or not—may be regarded for the purposes of clause 3(2)(a)—that is, whether or not it is likely to jeopardise the interests—as such if its unauthorised disclosure would be likely to have any of the effects mentioned in the clause. That is a guide to the jury, not to the prosecution. That is important. If somebody were to be prosecuted under the clause, the judge would say that the jury must have regard to subsection (3) to see whether any information may be regarded, for the purposes of the rest of the clause, as being confidential.
I fear that we will see prosecutions being brought under the clause, widely couched as it is, in cases where somebody has revealed communications between the EEC and this country. We are not talking only about organisations such as NATO or Interpol but about matters currently under discussion between EEC Ministers. Somebody may care to make such information public. A great deal of information is being exchanged in the Trevi group of Ministers between the Home Secretary and his counterparts within the EEC. It does not involve simply fisheries and food. The Shengan group of countries is discussing all sorts of methods to restrict the movements of people within the EEC and in and out of the EEC. It may be that such information should be made known. Yet, under this clause, to do so would be a criminal offence and render the person disclosing the information liable to prosecution.
The difficulty is that the clause covers items which are not simply matters of security. They are matters that might be the cause of some embarrassment. The Home Secretary says that that is not so, but the Government may decide, through the Director of Public Prosecutions, that a prosecution is necessary simply to stop the flow of information.
The clause is drawn in wide terms. It does not matter what the Home Secretary says to explain this clause or any other clause. Ultimately, a judge will have to direct a jury as to whether it should convict and the judge will have regard to what the statute says, not what the Home Secretary or anyone else said during the debate or what a press release might say. The statute is the key element—[Interruption.] It is all very well for the Minister of State to say from a sedentary position that he knows all that. Earlier today I wondered whether he did know all this because, in some of the clauses with which he was dealing, it was far from clear what it was intended that the statute should mean. His efforts, whether to clarify matters or to obfuscate, did not assist.
I understand that the Home Secretary said that he would look at subsection (3) again. In addition, I ask him to look at the way in which the clause is drafted. I want


him to ask himself what is the mischief at which he wants to strike. If it is the protection of defence secrets or certain negotiations, it would be better to legislate to stop that information being revealed rather than to have a catch-all clause which translates the worst elements of section 2 of the 1911 Act into clause 3. That is what the clause seeks to do.
The right hon. Gentleman should bear it in mind that a law will work only if it is respected and widely accepted. My fear is that much of the Bill, and this clause in particular, will fall into the same disrepute as section 2 of the 1911 Act simply because we did not have time, and the Government did not have the inclination, to give the clause the consideration it deserved. I hope that the Secretary of State will consider carefully the terms of the clause because, with so much of our lives being governed by the EEC and its directives, it is not good enough to say that members of the British public cannot know what is going on because it is protected by the clause.

Mr. Hind: Most of the public must be wondering whether the Bench from which I am rising is a Government Bench. I want to support some of the aspects of the Bill. While quietly and objectively listening to the debate on this clause, I was beginning to think that it was a quirky idea to want to protect the interests of the country in respect of international relations. Judging from the look of surprise on some of my colleagues' faces, I am not alone in thinking that that is a quirky idea.
Over and over again there has been a failure to grasp the fact that the criminal law is necessary to protect the national interest. International relations are highly sensitive. We are involved with a number of international organisations, as well as with other countries. Negotiations with them are of the essence of our national interests and must be protected.
Right hon. and hon. Members have repeatedly ignored the fact that the Bill contains a test of harm. Many have tried to run down that idea, but it is the crux of the Bill. Civil servants must be loyal to the state; they must not breach that loyalty and pass on damaging information. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) read out some of the clause, but forgot to read the bit that matters. It refers to wrongful disclosure by someone as being any
information, or a document or article which is or has been in his possession by virtue of his position as a Crown servant or government contractor.
The clause deals with people who come into possession of information by reason of their positions of confidence, and the criminal law should be used against such people. It is an extremely sensible way of dealing with the problem.
It has been alleged that this Bill represents a change from the 1911 Act. Of course it does, but it is a narrowing, not a broadening, change. Most Government activities are covered by the 1911 Act—not so by the Bill. The sooner hon. Members realise that this is a liberalising measure, the better; and the better the public will understand it—

Mr. Aitken: Where, in the 1911 Act, is there any reference to international organisations' secrets, or to its being part of the British Government's duty to protect the secrets of foreign Governments or organisations? Surely these are enlargements of the legislation's scope.

Mr. Hind: The 1911 Act is so global in its scope that it covers everything. My hon. Friend knows how few

international organisations there were in 1911. There was no EEC or NATO, there were no major international organisations—they were all created in recent years. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) spoke about the EEC. Why should it be treated any differently? [Interruption.] Opposition Members may laugh, but there are 12 member states in the EEC with which we carry out delicate negotiations. Those negotiations need the same protection as is afforded to non-EEC countries' dealings with our country. What is all the fuss about?
There is no real reason why the EEC should be singled out for different treatment. We are involved with it in many ways, and there is no need to exclude it from the clause.

Mr. Budgen: I am sure that my hon. Friend is trying to help the Government, but he must see that there is a conflict of loyalty here. Our former colleague Sir Leon Brittan was a distinguished Cabinet Minister. As such, he swore an oath of loyalty. As a Commissioner, he has now sworn an oath of loyalty to the EEC, an oath which, as he would put it, supersedes the narrow, outdated nationalistic oath that he swore in this House. He may feel it necessary from time to time to disclose information that he obtained on a narrow, nationalistic and parochial basis.
These may be regarded by many people as small points. Now that I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) is being handed a piece, of paper from the Government Front Bench, perhaps he will answer this querry. To pretend that there is no case is nonsense, and now that I have given my hon. Friend an opportunity—

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Interventions should be brief.

Mr. Hind: The arguments adduced against the clause have been out of all proportion to the simple and straightforward principle behind it, which is that the country is entitled to expect Parliament to provide protection for matters of confidence which affect our international relations and therefore the interests of the nation. The Bill provides that. The clause meets that requirement, and the amendment should be rejected.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I do not think anyone objects to the protection of some information in connection with international relations, and to that end my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) has not understood the amendment. While we accept that some information should be protected, the debate has been about the wide way in which the clause has been drafted.
It is an extraordinary clause. I have satisfied myself that it was a case of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office contending for the world, and by some peculiar mismatch of Whitehall dealing, it has got everything for which it asked. Indeed, it got so much that it is embarrassed by this richness of opportunities to prosecute and to prevent the publication or dissemination of information.
I do not agree with the Home Secretary's claim that there is not a new class of offence here. Information given by international organisations worries us. We have banged on over this matter—I use that expression deliberately—since the White Paper was published. The explanation


given so far of what is an international organisation is not satisfactory. We are grateful, therefore, that the Home Secretary has promised to provide some clarification.
This series of amendments suggests that these international organisations should be listed. The Foreign Secretary will not list them because, he has told us, it would not be practicable to do so. When, earlier this year, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) asked the Foreign Secretary to list the international organisations with which we have had dealings in the last year, that was not possible either, so we remain cautious about the meaing of "international organisations."

Sir Ian Gilmour: If the Foreign and Commonwealth Office does not know what an international organisation is, how is a journalist, who is liable to be prosecuted, to know?

Mr. Shepherd: The Minister of State is present. He is an authority on most things. Perhaps he will explain.
The United Nations must be an international organisation. We know about the recent problems of UNESCO and the activities of Mr. M'Bow. Lots of information currently reported by the British press is leaked information. That has been a tradition of this country, thank goodness, and it is part of what makes this a democracy and enables us, across the Floor of the House, to hold Governments to account and to question them on, and contribute to, foreign policy.
That flow of information must continue. The provision on international organisations has been drafted with a sloppy damage test. Not every judge or jury will be as wise or as understanding about the intentions of the legislation as my right hon. Friend or the Government. A jury might be persuaded by a barrister who relied on the fact that the damage test was satisfied because of the reference in clause 3(3) to the phrase:
by reason of the fact that it is confidential".
All those are matters of legitimate concern.
Amendment No. 25 proposes that the Government list the international organisations. If a criminal prosecution may be triggered, it does not seem unreasonable that we should know which organisation released the information which might jeopardise the interests of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Whitney: When my hon. Friends talk about information coming from international organisations they are neglecting the fact that the disclosure must be damaging. In a throwaway remark, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) suggested that it was a sloppy damage test. Subsection (2)(a) is not sloppy. My hon. Friend has suggested that the word "seriously" should be removed. That would make the provision sloppy. It is not sloppy at the moment.

Mr. Shepherd: It is always a joy to respond to my hon. Friend, a former diplomat. As to the point he made about the word "seriously", I wanted to know why the Government could have "seriously obstructs" but could not have "serious injury" to the interest of the United Kingdom abroad. The debate about whether the provision

is sloppily drafted has consumed the Committee for two or three hours. I think the overwhelming view is that it is drawn widely.
If my hon. Friend had been here earlier, he would have appreciated the anxiety about clause 3(3) to which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has tried to respond by clarifying the matter. Although we are all wrong and my right hon. Friend is right, he accepts that the matter requires clarification. I am grateful for that, and I do not want to minimise its importance.
As to international organisations, we go back to cocoa marketing and the International Tin Council, which involve representatives of the Malaysian Government and a cartel. Is OPEC, which rigs the oil market, an international organisation under the Bill?

Mr. Maclennan: I want to support the hon. Gentleman's point about the unsatisfactory harm test. In a real sense, clause 3 has no harm test because, under subsection (2)(b), the leaked document does not have to cause harm: it just has to be a document that was likely to cause harm.

Mr. Shepherd: We are familiar with the point, because we have exercised it.
The whole clause is important not just because of the disciplinary procedures within the Civil Service or the Foreign Office but because it relates to clause 5, covering the other groups and organisations that may become liable to prosecution as a consequence of the definition of international relations. That is why we are anxious to get the definition right. I do not believe that we have got it right. It requires further narrowing. I should like to think that, in the spirit of being prepared to accept some points on this, my right hon. Friend will go further than he has hitherto.

Mr. Rooker: The United Kingdom is not a member of OPEC. Given that the Foreign Office will not publish a list of the international organisations to which the Bill will apply, it will be only international organisations of which the United Kingdom is a member. That is the definition in clause 13(1). There is nothing for nothing in the world. If the United Kingdom is a member of an international organisation, it will have to pay a subscription. Money will flow from the British Treasury to help fund our membership of the international organisation, which would not be the case with OPEC. Therefore, what is the problem about the Home Secretary arranging for a list of the international organisations to which the United Kingdom pays subscriptions—all of which, I presume, would at some time send confidential information to the United Kindom? Where money follows, surely that is the list that we want. But that would not include—

The Chairman: Order. Is this relevant?

Mr. Rooker: Yes, it is, Mr. Walker.
That list would not include OPEC.

Mr. Shepherd: I am most grateful for that point. I had not taken on board the fact that we had to be a member of an international organisation. This is what I am anxious about. If we do not have to be a member, I think it can include OPEC, which is a market cartel whose purpose is to fix the price of oil, and that may be against the domestic


interests of our own citizens. It seems to me that it is awful to reach out and support organisations that we may not want to support.
Foreign affairs is one of the most important elements of our sense of citizenship. It is our expression overseas of who we are. Where we stand on foreign affairs, foreign relations, international organisations, is part of our national morality, and the information that we require in order to make a judgment on that goes far beyond the constraints in this piece of legislation. I hope that, in the end, the Home Secretary will see the force of the point that this is a legitimate area that requires widening in the interests of public affairs in this country.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: We greatly appreciate the fact that the Home Secretary is prepared to look again at the most worrying aspect of this clause. This is the first occasion on which he has felt able to make such an offer. When the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and I are on a joint deputation, it is quite clear that there must be something serious about. We should certainly thank the Home Secretary very much for his offer, and I hope that something useful will come from it.
I hope that, when he is reconsidering what we regard as a major problem in the Bill. which would create an injustice, my right hon. Friend will have another look at what constitutes an international organisation. How can we pass a law to create a penalty against people for revealing something emanating from an international organisation when none of us in this Chamber knows now—I challenge any hon. Member to say—what an international organisation is. We have been told that it is defined in clause 13(1), which says that it is an organisation of member states. Anyone who thinks that should look at clause 13(2), which says that, for the purposes of some parts of this Bill,
an international organisation includes…any such organisation whether or not one of which only States are members and includes a commercial organisation.
So it is quite clear that when we refer to an international organisation, we are talking of something much, much wider.

Mr. Greg Knight: Does my hon. Friend not consider that the idea of a schedule or list is also unworkable, because no provision is made for altering that schedule or list? As I understand the position, new primary legislation would be needed to add names to the list.

Mr. Taylor: I agree entirely that we cannot have a list, but surely we should have a definition. We cannot say that an international organisation is either a group of member states or else something that is not a group of member states, but includes people who are not member states, and can be a commercial organisation. I suggest that "international organisation" could mean anything at all, and I appeal to the Home Secretary, he having kindly said that he will look at one of our worries, to look at this one also.
May I ask my right hon. Friend to look seriously at the question of conflict of interests? He has confirmed that the European Community and the European Commission are both covered as international organisations. What on earth is the duty of a former British civil servant, obliged not to divulge anything in the national interest, who then had to divulge it as a European civil servant or Commissioner, saying that his obligation was to the

European Community? What would be his position if he were to reveal something that was damaging to the United Kingdom in the wider interests of the Community?
The Home Secretary has said—correctly, I think—that this clause needs to be looked at again. We are grateful to my right hon. Friend for what he has said. I hope that he will also look at those two points. In view of his kindness, I shall not press amendment No. 32 to a Division, but I understand that hon. Members may seek to divide the House on amendment No. 24.
It being Twelve o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the order [13 February] and the resolution (15 February], to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
Question put, That the amendment be made:

The Committee divided: Ayes 168, Noes 285.

Division No. 97]
[12 midnight


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Fisher, Mark


Aitken, Jonathan
Flannery, Martin


Allen, Graham
Flynn, Paul


Alton, David
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Anderson, Donald
Foster, Derek


Armstrong, Hilary
Foulkes, George


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Fraser, John


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Fyfe, Maria


Barron, Kevin
Galbraith, Sam


Battle, John
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Beckett, Margaret
George, Bruce


Beith, A. J.
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Bell, Stuart
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Bermingham, Gerald
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Blair, Tony
Golding, Mrs Llin


Blunkett, David
Gordon, Mildred


Boateng, Paul
Gorst, John


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Gould, Bryan


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Graham, Thomas


Buchan, Norman
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Buckley, George J.
Harman, Ms Harriet


Budgen, Nicholas
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Caborn, Richard
Haynes, Frank


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Heffer, Eric S.


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hinchlitfe, David


Canavan, Dennis
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Hood, Jimmy


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hoyle, Doug


Clay, Bob
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Clelland, David
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Cohen, Harry
Ingram, Adam


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Janner, Greville


Corbett, Robin
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Cousins, Jim
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Crowther, Stan
Kennedy, Charles


Cryer, Bob
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Cummings, John
Lamond, James


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Leadbitter, Ted


Dalyell, Tam
Leighton, Ron


Darling, Alistair
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Lewis, Terry


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Litherland, Robert


Dewar, Donald
Loyden, Eddie


Dixon, Don
McAllion, John


Dobson, Frank
McAvoy, Thomas


Doran, Frank
McCartney, Ian


Dun woody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Macdonald, Calum A.


Eadie, Alexander
McFall, John


Eastham, Ken
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Maclennan, Robert


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
McNamara, Kevin


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
McTaggart, Bob


Fearn, Ronald
McWilliam, John


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Madden, Max


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Mahon, Mrs Alice






Marek, Dr John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Martlew, Eric
Short, Clare


Maxton, John
Skinner, Dennis


Meale, Alan
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Michael, Alun
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Snape, Peter


Morgan, Rhodri
Soley, Clive


Nellist, Dave
Spearing, Nigel


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Steel, Rt Hon David


O'Neill, Martin
Strang, Gavin


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Patchett, Terry
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Pike, Peter L.
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Prescott, John
Vaz, Keith


Primarolo, Dawn
Wall, Pat


Radice, Giles
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Randall, Stuart
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Reid, Dr John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Richardson, Jo
Winnick, David


Robertson, George
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Robinson, Geoffrey
Worthington, Tony


Rooker, Jeff
Wray, Jimmy


Ruddock, Joan



Salmond, Alex
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sedgemore, Brian
Mr. Robert Wareing and


Sheerman, Barry
Mr. Jimmy Dunachie.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Carttiss, Michael


Alexander, Richard
Cash, William


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Amess, David
Chapman, Sydney


Amos, Alan
Churchill, Mr


Arbuthnot, James
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Colvin, Michael


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Conway, Derek


Aspinwall, Jack
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Atkins, Robert
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Atkinson, David
Cope, Rt Hon John


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Couchman, James


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Cran, James


Baldry, Tony
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Batiste, Spencer
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Beggs, Roy
Day, Stephen


Bellingham, Henry
Devlin, Tim


Bendall, Vivian
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Benyon, W.
Dunn, Bob


Bevan, David Gilroy
Dykes, Hugh


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Eggar, Tim


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Evennett, David


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fallon, Michael


Boswell, Tim
Favell, Tony


Bottomley, Peter
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Fishburn, John Dudley


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Fookes, Dame Janet


Bowis, John
Forman, Nigel


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Forth, Eric


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bright, Graham
Fox, Sir Marcus


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Franks, Cecil


Browne, John (Winchester)
Freeman, Roger


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
French, Douglas


Buck, Sir Antony
Gale, Roger


Burns, Simon
Glyn, Dr Alan


Burt, Alistair
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Butcher, John
Goodlad, Alastair


Butler, Chris
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Butterfill, John
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Gow, Ian


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gower, Sir Raymond


Carrington, Matthew
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)





Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Miller, Sir Hal


Gregory, Conal
Miscampbell, Norman


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mitchell, Sir David


Grist, Ian
Monro, Sir Hector


Ground, Patrick
Morrison, Sir Charles


Grylls, Michael
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Moss, Malcolm


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Hanley, Jeremy
Neale, Gerrard


Hannam, John
Nelson, Anthony


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Neubert, Michael


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Nicholls, Patrick


Hayes, Jerry
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hayward, Robert
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Norris, Steve


Heddle, John
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Page, Richard


Hind, Kenneth
Paice, James


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Holt, Richard
Patnick, Irvine


Hordern, Sir Peter
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Howard, Michael
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Pawsey, James


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Portillo, Michael


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Price, Sir David


Hunter, Andrew
Raff an, Keith


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Irvine, Michael
Rathbone, Tim


Jack, Michael
Redwood, John


Jackson, Robert
Renton, Tim


Janman, Tim
Rhodes James, Robert


Jessel, Toby
Riddick, Graham


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Key, Robert
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rost, Peter


Knapman, Roger
Rowe, Andrew


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Knox, David
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lang, Ian
Scott, Nicholas


Latham, Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lawrence, Ivan
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lee, John (Pendle)
Shelton, Sir William


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shersby, Michael


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Sims, Roger


Lightbown, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lilley, Peter
Speller, Tony


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lord, Michael
Squire, Robin


McCrindle, Robert
Stanbrook, Ivor


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Steen, Anthony


Maclean, David
Stern, Michael


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stevens, Lewis


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Stokes, Sir John


Madel, David
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Major, Rt Hon John
Sumberg, David


Malins, Humfrey
Summerson, Hugo


Maples, John
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Marland, Paul
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mates, Michael
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Maude, Hon Francis
Thorne, Neil


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Thornton, Malcolm


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thurnham, Peter


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)






Trotter, Neville
Wiggin, Jerry


Twinn, Dr Ian
Wilkinson, John


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Wilshire, David


Viggers, Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Waddington, Rt Hon David
Winterton, Nicholas


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Wolfson, Mark


Walden, George
Wood, Timothy


Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Woodcock, Mike


Waller, Gary
Yeo, Tim


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Warren, Kenneth
Younger, Rt Hon George


Watts, John



Wells, Bowen
Tellers for the Noes:


Wheeler, John
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and


Whitney, Ray
Mr. Tony Durant.


Widdecombe, Ann

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

To report Progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

Beef Imports (United States)

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4296/89 on tariff concessions and import duties on certain imports from the United States of America; and supports the Government in pressing for a negotiated settlement to the dispute between the Community and the United States of America over the Community's prohibition of imports of hormone treated meat as a means of averting trade disruption and damage to wider Community-United States relations, particularly in the context of the current round of multi-lateral trade negotiations in GATT.
I am grateful to the Scrutiny Committee for taking such a close interest in this subject. I advise Opposition Members that I am very much aware of recent criticism and anxiety about scrutiny procedures in the House. I assure the House that the Government are looking at this. This debate is particularly opportune, as the Foreign Affairs Council will consider the European Community-United States dispute over hormones next Monday and I am keen to hear the House's views before then.
The EC hormones directive was agreed by the Council by qualified majority in December 1985, to come into effect by 1 January 1988. The United Kingdom voted against that decision and subsequently challenged the directive in the European Court of Justice. Our challenge was on several grounds, including the lack of scientific justification. The court accepted the United Kingdom arguments about the procedural irregularities in the adoption of the measure and annulled the directive. However, it did not rule on the scientific point. A new directive, identical in substance to the earlier one, was agreed by the council in March 1988, by qualified majority vote—with the United Kingdom alone voting against. Although the directive was agreed in the face of strong and consistent United Kingdom objections, it is now part of Community law, and therefore binding on all member states. We have therefore no choice but to implement it.
The concern that produced the ban was directed not only at meat produced in the Community—it was also about meat consumed in the Community. Thus, it had to apply also to imports, wherever they come from. All the usual exporters of meat to the European Community, apart from the United States and Canada, accepted the ban. Each exporter provides guarantees that their beef does not come from hormone-treated animals. The United Kingdom, supported by some other member states, succeeded in getting EC agreement to reduce imports banned by about a quarter to $100 million by exempting petfood. We also prevented damage to pet food manufacturers in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, which depended on imports of United States meat. As the United States and Canada had refused to comply with the requirements of the directive in relation to beef, imports of bovine meat and offal for human consumption from the United States and Canada were banned from 1 January. About one quarter of the trade affected normally conies to the United Kingdom.
On 27 December 1988, the United States Administration responded by announcing the imposition of a prohibitive 100 per cent. tariff on certain EC' exports to the United States, worth about $100 million. to take effect from 1 January. The exports in question—primarily


canned tomatoes, fruit juices, instant coffee and low alcohol drinks—come largely from Italy, Germany and Spain. Only 2 per cent. of EC exports affected by United States measures come from the United Kingdom. Following United Kingdom pressure in the Council debate in January, I secured a grace period in action until the end of January, so that United States meat not complying with the directive and EC exports affected by the United States tariff increase, but shipped before the end of December, remained unaffected.

Mr. William Cash: Can my right hon. Friend inform me whether with respect to the original directive, which was under article 43 of the treaty of Rome, and the regulation, which is under article 113, the stages which were taken in the Council, which were supposed to be under unanimous procedure, were taken in that way? Did we exercise the veto on either or both those occasions?

Mrs. Chalker: We argued that the legal base should include article 100 and not merely article 43. In 1985, that would have required unanimity. My hon. Friend will remember that we took our case to the European court of Justice, but lost on that point. I do not believe that it would have been appropriate in this instance to use the Luxembourg compromise, which has always been reserved for extremely important matters at stake. We took the issue to the European court and, having lost, saw no further extent to which we could take it.

Mr. Cash: Will my right hon. Friend allow me to intervene once more?

Mrs. Chalker: I do not think that I can take the point any further.

Mr. Cash: Article 43, which was the basis on which the issue was being decided, states clearly that the Council, under proposals from the Commission shall act unanimously during the first two stages. I merely ask the question again: did we exercise our veto under article 43?

Mrs. Chalker: That is what I sought to explain to my hon. Friend.
It is important to have clearly in our minds what is happening now. Since 1 February, the community ban is now in force, as the unilateral United States measures against the EC. Overall, the direct effect on United Kingdom trade is very small, although, inevitably and sadly, some firms may suffer. The United States is an important source of offal for processing and as alternative sources cannot easily be found, some processed meat companies may soon notice the effect of the ban.
We greatly regret this dispute. Although the amount of trade involved is small so far, the dispute is potentially very damaging. There is a real risk of escalation. The United States Agriculture Secretary, Clayton Yeutter, said in his confirmatory hearing on Capitol hill that, if the EC imposed counter-retaliation measures, the United States would counter-counter-retaliate. Such a trade war would make the dispute much more difficult to resolve.
The EC and the United States have major roles to play in the GATT Uruguay round—not least in resolving the current deadlock on agriculture and finding a way forward. Those are the most ambitious and complex

multilateral trade negotiations yet. We should not allow attention to be diverted, or the atmosphere to be soured, by a trade dispute.
Our view remains that all trade disputes can be resolved only through negotiation. The sooner a constructive negotiation can be engaged over hormones, the better. The dispute can only get worse with time. The GATT offers three possible routes for the settlement of the dispute—a conventional GATT panel under article XXIII, the dispute settlement procedures of the GATT technical barriers to trade "standards" code, and an ad hoc procedure under the good offices of the director-general.
The Community has not ruled out any of those options, although it recognises that recourse to the dispute settlement procedures of the standards code would require a shift in the entrenched United States position on the scope of the code which the United States, despite evidence to the contrary, believes covers process and production methods such as the hormones directive.
The EC has so far wisely refrained from counter-retaliation against United States action. A list of United States exports—walnuts and dried fruits—on which 100 per cent. tariffs could be imposed has been drawn up. This amounts to about $100 million a year, of which only about 4 per cent. normally comes to the United Kingdom, but pressures remain in the Community for counter-retaliation, especially from those member states worst hit by United States measures. At the January Foreign Affairs Council, the Council agreed to take stock of the situation at its next session on 20 February. We also agreed that the EC counter-measures would be put into effect unless there was satisfactory progress in GATT or in bilateral negotiations with the United States. We shall continue trying to find ways to avoid precipitous EC action when the matter is discussed at the February Foreign Affairs Council
At the GATT Council on 8–9 February, the Community's complaint against the United States unilateral action was considered. The Community asked for a GATT panel to examine the United States measures. The United States rejected the request, but expressed the hope that the issue could be settled bilaterally. The Community offered consultations which the United States welcomed, but would not have them before the Commission talks with United States Trade Representative Hills and United States Agriculture Secretary Yeutter on 18 February. Thus, confrontation was at least delayed, but much now depends on talks in Washington this weekend.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed the dispute with United States Secretary of State Baker last Sunday. He impressed on him the need for early resolution of the issue—which would need good will on both sides.
If, against our expectations, the outcome from the weekend Washington meetings were absolute deadlock, there would undoubtedly be very strong pressure from some member states at next Monday's Foreign Affairs Council for EC counter-retaliation. I do not believe that counter-retaliation would achieve anything, and I trust that it will not be necessary.
Whether or not there is another twist to the retaliatory spiral, the Government will continue to do everything possible to work for a rapid settlement of the dispute.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: I am concerned about the tone of the diplomatic exchanges between my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and the new United States Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State spoke of backing off, giving way, and retreating, but surely it is the other way round. The European Community must realise the realities of the situation, acknowledge that it is in the wrong and, above all, accept that when it comes to the Uruguay round the United States holds the cards in trade negotiations, and that any retaliation could result in something far worse than has ever been envisaged.

Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend is being a little unfair. In recent months, we have on many occasions attempted to get a proper discussion under way. My hon. Friend will recall that, a few moments ago, I said that the Community offered consultations which, while they were welcomed by the United States, had been declined before the Commission talks with the United States next weekend. Had talks taken place last week, perhaps we would be on our way to an earlier resolution of the matter than can now be possible.
Everything is now being crowded into the weekend before the meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council. If consultations had taken place after 8 February but before 18 February, there would have been more time to talk matters through calmly, and to reach the solution that we seek. When my right hon. and learned Friend discussed the matter with Secretary of State Baker last Sunday, he tried to impress on the American Secretary of State the need for discussion and for an early resolution—which the Americans, by not agreeing to consultations in the intervening period, effectively refused. We regret that fact because we made constant and repeated efforts to resolve the problem.
Negotiation is the only way forward. I hope that good sense will prevail sooner rather than later, because we can then turn our attention to other important matters within European Community-United States relations. I thoroughly agree that making progress on agriculture in the GATT round is vital and I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. George Robertson: The debate concerns a matter of enormous importance, affecting not just trade matters. Although we are concerned for the moment about only $100 million of trade, within weeks the figure could escalate to considerable multiples of that sum, to $500 million or more. This evening, the Minister said:
the dispute is potentially very damaging. There is a real risk of escalation.
This debate is also important in health terms, as the debate on whether hormones in meat have an effect on consumption gets lost in a sea of acrimony over trade and trade relations. It does not require an hon. or right hon. Member of any perception to realise that the question of the nation's health in relation to its food supplies dominates the media and Parliament. The debate is also of substantial political and diplomatic importance, as the relationship between the United States and our allies in Europe grows worse and more strained—in marked contrast, remarkably, to the sweet noises that now characterise East-West relations. Emphasising the signal

importance of this debate is the fact that it was opened by the deputy Foreign Secretary, and will be wound up by the Minister for Trade.
Remarkably, this debate started after midnight, although in less than a week the deferred decision on retaliation is due to come before the Council of Ministers. Moreover, this is the first time since 1985 that the House has had an opportunity to discuss this far-reaching and momentous subject—and we have probably been given the opportunity now only because of the perceptiveness and insistence of the Select Committee on European Legislation, which has done an excellent job. That is a disgrace. It is an insult to the House of Commons and an affront to parliamentary accountability.
Whatever view we may take of the issue, it serves to highlight and underline the way in which we have not only seen power disappear from the House of Commons, but found in its place no less than a contempt for our right even to advise those Ministers who go to the Council on our behalf. I welcome the Minister's assurance that the Government are conscious of, perhaps even embarrassed by, the way in which scrutiny of European legislation has been allowed to slip. We shall hold her to that commitment.
Although it may be embarrassing for them, I should like to support the Government's position and that of the European Community. We strongly endorse the Community's case—not just the essentials, but the principle. The decision that has been made is not designed to discriminate against any other country's trade. It was made within the Community, and applies as much to Community agriculture as to that of any country, including the United States.
This is a clear indication of consumer preference throughout the Community. Let me quote from the influential magazine Agra Europe, which in many other instances expresses a critical viewpoint. Its edition of 22 December says:
The Americans on the other hand would do well to recognise the democratic origins of the EC's hormone legislation: it is one of the few pieces of law in the food and agriculture of the Community which actually reflects the desires of the European electorate—unlike the CAP itself which reflects the interests and demands of a small minority of the population and actively harms the majority.

Mr. John Greenway: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if we ban products which scientific evidence proves are safe we are on the slippery slope? If, after scientific advice, it is shown that unpasteurised milk is safe, will the Labour party insist on a ban?

Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman jumps up too quickly. As that is at the root of the issue, I proposed to come to it. As he has mentioned unpasteurised milk, however, it is interesting to note that the United States, which is making most of the brouhaha here, has banned the import of cheeses made from it on the basis not of scientific evidence but of consumer preference. There is no reason why the European Community, or any individual country within it, should not do the same.

Mr. Michael Lord: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Robertson: No. My time is limited, and I have already dealt with the point. I shall come to the scientific implications in due course, and if the hon. Gentleman wishes to try again then he may be successful.
The case is strong, and not only on the basis of consumer preference, although it is perfectly reasonable for anyone in this country or the European Community to come to a conclusion that takes account of scientific practice without following it slavishly. The right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) wrote in an article in
The Times:
The council had clearly taken a political decision, as the agriculture commissioner later confirmed.
Of course there is an element of politics. The idea that the right hon. Member for Henley can stand apart from political decision is in itself a bit of a joke.
The pace of biotechnology and all its implications does not involve simply the individual reports of one committee or any single series of contemporary evidence. Professor Lamming's report—the basis of the scientific evidence put forward—was careful in its endorsement of the five hormones, and agreed to them only
under proper conditions of use".
The report contained that important qualification. However, the pace of biotechnology cannot be quantified from one moment to the next. As we have seen during the past few weeks, contemporary views about what is healthy and what is not are open to debate. Ultimately the decision has to be taken by politicians assessing scientific evidence and other considerations.
I strongly support the suggestion by Mr. Ken Collins, the Member of the European Parliament for Strathclyde, East when the European Parliament considered these matters in 1988 that we need a major study both on the biotechnological aspects and on the wider public implications. That is how we shall acquire some conclusive evidence, not from one specific panel of experts.

Mr. Lord: The hon. Gentleman is saying that we must be careful about what we do because things can change rapidly and we do not know what will happen in future. But we are dealing with today, and we are dealing with the facts. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, by and large, scientists are fairly careful and do not take decisions dogmatically or with great emphasis unless they are sure of their facts? In this case, Professor Lamming and his committee had a good look at the matter we are discussing, and concluded that the use of the synthetic hormones presented no cancer risk and constituted no conceivable hazard to human health. If there is to be any sense in our debate about food and all the present problems, surely we must depend on scientific evidence when it is presented in that form.

Mr. Robertson: rose—

Sir John Stradling Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Robertson: I have a deep affection for the hon. Gentleman, but I shall not give way.
Hon. Members should bear in mind the fact that there are wider implications than Professor Lamming's report. Scientists can be dogmatic. Medical and scientific experts often reach contradictory conclusions. I refer Conservative Members to our continual debates on abortion. Both sides of the argument deploy eminent scientific experts to prove absolutely contradictory arguments. Those who are quite content to rely on Professor Lamming's committee have to discount the

opinions of all the members of the European Parliament who voted for the ban and those within the Council of Ministers who made the ultimate decision.
I welcome the belated appearance of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, since the implications of that decision are considerable. If the hon. Gentleman dissents from the view of the Council of Ministers, it would be nice to have it on record so that the view of the British Government is known. The Minister did not take such a position at the Dispatch Box this evening. She spoke in defence of a Community decision taken by a majority vote, and, as she said, without the United Kingdom veto being used. The Minister must accept collective responsibility with her colleagues in the fight that will take place. The Government of course oppose it.
As in so many cases recently, the health of the nation takes second place to the interests of the farmers and the drug companies. What is all the fuss about? The House and the country have a right to ask this question. Why is it that we are on the brink of a trade war with the Americans over £100 million-worth of what is, after all, mostly offal, which is usually regarded as waste products, and the cheapest cuts of meat? Whey are we on the brink of a trade war over something apparently as trivial as that?
Mr. James Baker, the new US Secretary of State, said that he believed that this dispute was trivial and unworthy. He was quoted this week in the International Herald Tribune as saying that it would have to be solved, because it would get diplomatic relations with Europe off on the wrong foot.
Why are we on the brink of a trade war? The American case is, of course, extremely weak. First, it has the arbitrary ban on non-pasteurised European products entering the United States on the grounds of taste. It has no scientific evidence, but it is doing it on the basis of American health preference.
Secondly, there has been an offer from both Texas and Kansas to supply an equivalent amount of the agricultural produce that is being prevented from coming in from the European Community. Mr. Jim Hightower, who is the Texan Commissioner of Agriculture, from the President's own State, has offered to make up the shortfall in terms which would qualify under the Community's new rules.
Why is the United States willing to breach the GATT rules at this stage when its case is so weak?
The Financial Times this week concluded that the United States finds itself in the wrong. It said:
The US must recognise that no system of rules can survive if each participant believes it possesses carte blanche to act in its own behalf.
That is a conclusion derived from the fact that the European Community has at least won informal support from its GATT partners for its protest about that unilateral decision.
The question must be legitimately asked, why are we on the brink of a trade war over £100 million-worth of trade in offal when EEC-United States trade amounts to more than £150 billion a year? I suggest that we must look to more sinister forces to get an answer to that question. We are right to do so, because there is no easy explanation of why we are in our present position. Why is the drugs lobby well organised, well financed and well deployed and in the forefront in ensuring that these hormones are used for


health? According to the Financial Times of 28 January 1988, the European Federation of Animal Health is a group of 22 major pharmaceutical companies
which have banded together to try to overturn the EC directive".
The article went on to say:
The group's defence fund runs into hundreds of thousands of dollars. It claims to have several weapons still in its armoury".
Its key weapon, of course, was the British Government's outright hostility to that directive taken through the European Court of Justice, and taken to a vote in the Council of Ministers.
The Financial Times of 8 March, when the directive had finally gone through, said:
The directive has inspired fierce criticism from the pharmaceuticals lobby".
Of course, in the United States of America, the pharmaceuticals lobby is even more powerful than it is in the European Community. The Animal Health Institute bands together the largest of the multinational drug companies in exercising its influence, too.
Four weeks ago, John Lichfield, in his article in The Independent, said:
an EC official also identified 'the power of the pharmaceutical lobby in US government agencies on Capitol Hill' as a principal if not the only cause of the row.
We are getting closer to home when we begin to see the power of the industry. The animal hormone industry in Europe accounts for some £100 million-worth of trade. Therefore, the coincidence of a market for £100 million-worth of animal hormones in Europe with a trade war starting over £100 million is too large to discount.
The British Government's position must be clear and straightforward from now. There must be no bending on the right of Europe or individual countries in Europe to reflect genuine concerns and apprehensions among our populations even if the technological and scientific establishment is not, at this moment, in full support of that position. The Government must do something about the decision to ban the hormones. There must be a stricter enforcement regime in this country than is apparently the case today. Much more residue testing has to take place and the research institutes that have had their funding reduced or stopped must have it reinstated. Perhaps the Minister should ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who is beside her on the Front Bench, whether agricultural produce should be put under the product liability directive so that, not only in this area but in others, farmers can be on the same footing as every other producer and subject to the same discipline.
The British and American Governments must abandon their fatal fixation for jumping at every whim of the multinational drug companies. Their voracious appetite for profits, even at the expense of the public good, has rarely been in such open display as in this contrived, artificial and hugely damaging dispute. Drugs and biotechnology should be the servant of the public good and not its master, which seems to be the case now.

Sir Peter Hordern: This European Community document is a bad idea and I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend the Minister condemn it. It appears from what she said that the Government have done their best to knock the idea on the head. That is the correct

attitude. However, when my right hon. Friend said that in the talks between my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and United States Secretary Baker the Government urged that negotiations should take place, it occurred to me that the Government are on the same side as the Americans in this dispute and we should be negotiating, perhaps together with the Americans, to try to alter the European Community's attitude. If the measure proceeds, it will lead inexorably towards a trade war which will be of no benefit to our country or to the European Community. I am therefore glad to support the attitude adopted by my right hon. Friend the Minister.
I was astonished by the Opposition's attitude. If their view were adopted, we should end up with a protectionist European Community which would be careless of the interests of the people of the European Community.
On the merits of the case, this seems to be a tit-for-tat proposal to put 100 per cent. taxes on $100 million-worth of food imports from the United States, mostly comprising fruit and nuts. Thus, in due course, it will be much more expensive for the consumer. That arises because the United States has put 100 per cent. duties on some European foods, including tinned tomatoes and special hams, in return for $100 million of lost beef sales due to hormone treatment. I should like to ask—

Mr. George Foulkes: Does Fisons or any of the other companies to which the hon. Gentleman is a consultant or parliamentary adviser have any interest in the matter thatwe are discussing?

Sir Peter Hordern: I certainly am a consultant to Fisons, but that has nothing to do with the debate.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that we should ignore all this nonsense about health and recognise that the reason why the EEC wants to ban beef is the same as its reason for banning apples over-production, to which d mistakenly believes protectionism is the answer? It is shameful for the Opposition to pretend that there is a health problem, especially as the scientific evidence is clear and precise. Let us see health problems for what they are, and protectionism for what it is.

Sir Peter Hordern: I agree.
The safety aspect must be dealt with, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will comment on it. We need to know what the Government think about Professor Lamming's report, which says that hormones present no conceivable hazard. The only hazard that they represent is to the 625,000 tonnes of beef that the European farmers have produced.
The United States would like to submit five main growth hormones to an independent study, but the European Commission has steadfastly refused to allow such a study. The party that is prepared to hold an independent study is more likely to be right than the party that is not.

Sir John Stradling Thomas: The Commission took this decision before the Lamming committee had had a chance to report. The decision was based on no scientific evidence at all, and the Lamming committee's conclusions pointed in the opposite direction.

Sir Peter Hordern: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right.
These problems are always likely to occur because of the nature of the common agricultural policy. Until it is reformed, they are likely to continue. Perhaps this was not the occasion for my right hon. Friend to use the Luxembourg compromise, but this measure must be seen in the context of the dangers of an escalating trade war with the United States. The new Administration there depend more than the last on the co-operation of Congress and are doing their best to co-operate with it. The new Government are far less steadfast in support of free trade than President Reagan was, so there is a real risk of a trade war.
Unless there is agreement soon, Congress will apply continuous pressure for more restrictions on trade. The reason for the worldwide slump after the crash of 1929 was the trade restraints in force at the time. The money involved in this case—only $100 million—is not the point. United States trade with the European Community is worth $145 billion—an enormous sum. If this tit-for-tat business starts, there will be no reason for it to stop.
I do not quite know how the Government should proceed, but we must get a firm grip on the negotiations in the EEC. This measure will do the Community no good. If America and the rest of the world get the idea that the Community is no more than a protectionist collection of nations, we shall be in serious trouble. I hope that if anything like this occurs again the Government will consider using the Luxembourg compromise.

Mr. Ken Hargreaves: I am grateful to the Government for the efforts they have made in opposing the hormone ban and for their attempts to find a solution to a dispute which could have been avoided if only those involved had looked at the facts.
There is no medical or scientific evidence to support the ban. The United States and Common Market countries have been using licensed growth hormones without any ill effects for 20 years. The irony of the whole situation is that the ban may bring about the risk to health that presumably it is intended to prevent. That risk to health comes from the use of natural hormones; 1 kg of cabbage has the same hormone content as 200 kg of meat from an implanted steer, and one litre of beer has the same hormone content as 100 g of meat from an implanted steer.
The risk comes from the danger that banning licensed hormones will lead to a black market in illegal unlicensed products. That is the real danger to health that those supporting the ban do not see, or perhaps do not want to see. These illicit substances, unlike the licensed ones, pose a threat to health because their constituents, the dosage and the method of application are uncontrollable and their presence in meat impossible to detect by present methods.
The United States claims to have evidence already that these hormone cocktails are being used illegally in Italy, Belgium and Ireland. That is an unacceptable and unnecessary risk. The directive should be revised to re-allow the use of the five licensed hormone products.
Because the EC meat processing industry is dependent on imported offal, the present ban puts at risk 400 jobs in the United Kingdom, 45 of which are in my constituency. Those workers, at World Foods in Great Harwood, who are likely to lose their jobs have a right to expect that our

attitude to the ban should depend on the facts. But sadly, except for the British Government, that is not how policy has been decided.
The European Parliament voted to introduce the ban without waiting for the report of the committee of scientists chaired by Professor Lamming, which had been commissioned to undertake a study of the five substances. The Council of Ministers abruptly dismissed the committee before the report was published, causing the scientists to come together at their own expense and openly and unanimously to declare that the hormones constituted no conceivable hazard to humna health.
The Labour party also stands condemned for its attitude. Mr. Brian Quinn, director of World Foods, wrote to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) on 28 December outlining the problem and asking for his support. Mr. Quinn was amazed to receive a reply from the hon. Gentleman saying:
Before giving you my considered response, it would be helpful if you could let me know what response you receive from the Government.
Mr. Quinn believes, as I do and as the workers at World Foods believe, that policy should be decided on the facts and not on whether a given situation can be used as a stick to beat the Government. My constituents wonder why their jobs have to be put at risk just to oppose the Government.
Stocks of North American tongues held in the United Kingdom are diminishing fast, bringing even closer the death of this industry and the loss of jobs. A way must be found to allow the United Kingdom tongue processing industry access to North American markets before it is too late.
I hope that the Government, having recognised the dangers of this dispute escalating, will continue to try to find a solution which common sense will bring about and ensure that common sense prevails, so that trade relations between the United States and the European Community can get back to normal.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: I wish first to try to place this dispute not just in an agricultural and scientific perspective, important though that is, but in an historical and political perspective for the future.
We should begin by remembering what the role of the United States has been for the last 40 years in Europe. Ever since the Marshall plan and the days just after the war, the United States has consistently been a supporter of European strength, European prosperity, European trade growth and European political integration and cooperation. Yet here we are discussing the possibility of the outbreak of a major trade war. This tiny subject of beef hormones could be the Sarajevo of the trade war of the future. Therefore, it is much more serious than just a mere scientific wrangle, important though that is.
This is a silly and unnecessary dispute. I could not agree more with those of my hon. Friends who have already forcefully made the point that there is no scientific basis for the directive. I am glad that the Government voted against it, although I am mildly concerned by the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), which I do not think has yet had a satisfactory answer from the Front Bench, that there was an opportunity for us to exercise our veto at the preliminary stages in the EEC machinations. I hope that the point will be answered by the


Minister for Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark), as to why we seemed to be asleep at the switch at the moment when we could have used the veto.
I deplore most strongly the speech of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) on behalf of the Opposition. I thought that he was trying in the most opportunistic way possible to leap on a cheap and easy bandwagon. It is not justified. He does not usually agree with the European Commission, but the Commission's fault is that it gave way to political pressures of the most superficial and wrong kind. The European Parliament, too, stands condemned in its attitude because it confused green emotions and health populism with responsible government and diplomacy. What is necessary now is for the EEC to cool it. Of course, I am glad that the countermeasures have been delayed.
I want to press my hon. Friend the Minister on one paragraph of the document issued by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—a Department which is in trouble for issuing contradictory statements. That paragraph, which seems to contradict the tone of the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office says:
The Department"—
that is MAFF—
adds that the proposal reflects the Commission's belief that the United States' measures are not consistent with the GATT, and that measures of an equivalent effect are necessary to protect Community interests.
I have two comments on that statement. First, GATT has not pronounced judgment on the matter. I do not see why our Ministry of Agriculture is jumping the gun and pronouncing judgment when GATT has so far scrupulously refrained from doing so. Secondly, I do not agree that
measures of an equivalent effect are necessary to protect Community interests.
Far from it. The Community should now be back-tracking and going into reverse.
I was somewhat concerned with the tone of the opening speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State when she seemed to indicate that Secretary of State Baker had had a jolly good wigging from my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and had been told that he should get his act together, back off and stop his nonsense. That was the general impression that my right hon. Friend's words created.
Our Government should indicate as clearly as possible that the EEC has got this one wrong. Britain, albeit as a lone voice—but, I hope, a strong one—should make it crystal clear that this is an issue on which we not only disagree with the EEC but on which we shall use all our influence to try to achieve a reversal of this foolish and unwise policy.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade is to reply because he will be aware, perhaps more than anyone else in the House, of the long-term implications of this potential trigger for a trade war. He must play some part on behalf of the United Kingdom Government in the Uruguay round of international trade rules redrafting, which is likely to take place in the early 1990s. This dispute is likely to trigger a hostile reaction in the Uruguay round if we are not extremely careful.
As 1992 is opening Europe up internally it is also in danger of closing doors externally. My worry is that this little dispute is a symptom of a far worse disease—creeping protectionism, perhaps leading to the mortal illness of

Fortress Europe. The reciprocity issue is rearing its unattractive head in areas far wider than beef hormones—in the second banking directive, in the social dimension, in the European companies statute, there is one sign after another that Europe is moving towards some form of protectionism. I am pleased to see so many of my hon. Friends here and in such strong voice, making it clear to the Government and to the empty Opposition Benches that what is happening must be stopped as soon as possible.

Mr. Tim Smith: I was amazed by the speech the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson). I took part in the debate on the Medicines (Hormone Growth Promoters) (Prohibition of Use) Regulations 1986, which took place in Standing Committee on 3 December. That debate was opened by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall), who said this:
Opposition Members support the use of growth promoters or hormones, in principle, providing that there is scientific evidence to suggest that the products are safe to the consumer, the animal and the people who administer them.
So what we have heard this evening is the most staggering volte-face on the part of the Opposition in just two years, simply to jump on the health bandwagon.
What is more, in that Standing Committee the hon. Gentleman made some remarks about the pharmaceutical industry.
The Parliamentary Secretary knows that these industries manufacture for their own stock and retain stocks for vets and farmers.
He went on to complain about the way in which the industry had been treated as a result of the introduction of the directive and the regulations:
I have received representations from the pharmaceutical industry, and I am worried about the way that it has been treated.
A few sentences later he asked:
Will the Government compensate the pharmaceutical industry for the tremendous losses that it incurred…?"—[Official Report, Second Standing Committee on .Statutory Instruments, &amp;c., 3 December 1986; c. 2–6.]
So I wonder who actually is the spokesman for the pharmaceutical industry. We have seen the most extraordinary change.
The Government should stick to their guns. Their position is entirely correct—there is no scientific base for the directive. That has always been the Government's position, and the matter could be resolved sensibly if the Government could persuade other members of the EEC to repeal the directive. There is no reason why that should not be done. My understanding is that some member states which originally voted for it have had second thoughts. The question that I wanted to ask my right hon. Friend the Minister of State at the end of her speech was whether she could confirm that.
Perhaps I may put a question to my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade. Is there any prospect of persuading the members of the Council that the measure is nonsense, has no scientific basis and ought to be repealed? That would be the best way forward.

Mr. Bowen Wells: I wish to support all the contributions of my hon. Friends and to tell my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade that we clearly must find a way out of the impasse.
I agree that to use the Luxembourg compromise, which the Government could have done, would be an excessive use of the veto, but we shall soon have to consider using such an extreme measure in order to nip in the bud this nascent trade war which, as others have said, will tend to escalate into an important and damaging affair between the United States and the EC. When the matter is negotiated over the next two weeks, that may be a way in which to reach a compromise.
It seems clear to us that there is no scientific evidence for the ban. Therefore, the EEC has to face the fact that the imposition of such a ban is protectionism. It is protecting Europe's beef industry against that of the United States.
If that is the case, we might reach agreement by setting up a joint committee with the United States scientists and those supporting the European case in order to decide first whether the scientific evidence is valid and then, after due consideration, to discuss whether, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) suggested, the directive should be withdrawn. In that way we may be able to stop the present escalation of the trade war so that all the parties can reconsider their positions. In the meantime, both sides should remove the current trade restrictions.

Mr. William Cash: I heard the speech of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) with increasing disbelief. It was clear that he had not done his homework. Apart from anything else, he does not seem to have realised that the United States Government have sought to invoke an arbitration agreement within GATT to resolve the question, and the European Commission has obdurately refused.
I had reason to refer to a similar matter last week on reciprocity and the banking directive when the European Commission, despite the unanimous view of the member states, refused to withdraw those provisions. I said then that I thought that it was time that the European Commission was effectively given instructions in such matters. It may be difficult to achieve that, but the bottom line is the Council of Ministers, which, in turn, is accountable to national Parliaments and electorates. The time is coming when we have to put our foot down over the way in which the European Commission is acting because it is getting completely out of hand.

Miss Emma Nicholson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the real bottom line is whether the consumer will be prepared to buy the beef if it comes back on sale full of hormones? If the committee mentioned in the excellent proposal put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) a moment ago should be formed and we manage to have the ban lifted, which must be proper if scientific evidence supports it, unless the consumer buys the beef it will all be to no avail. The increasing emphasis on the fears and worries as a result of the greater information given to the consumer on bovine spongiform encephalopathy in

recent weeks means that it is in all our interests to ensure that the consumer is confident that the beef on sale is healthy.
Finally, will my hon. Friend comment on whether he feels that the United States will lift its ban if we do not? In conversation two weeks ago, the chairman of the agriculture committee of the Senate made it clear that he thought that we were all silly, and I do not think that the United States will.

Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend may recall that during the debate there has been significant reference to Professor Lamming's expert committee. I would prefer to rest my case on that, plus the fact that it is clear that the European Commission is not interested in negotiating such matters. The Commission seems to be making this into an issue of principle. As I shall seek to explain, it is playing a dangerous game.
I have briefly referred to the possibility of having the opportunity at an earlier stage of exercising the veto, but I must remind the House that in 1986 my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary reaffirmed the existence of the Luxembourg accord and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, in her evidence to the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities, made the same point. There is a fallback position, so one must weigh up the balance of interests when one is talking about what is a vital interest and one must determine that against the consequences of the veto. I can hardly conceive of any matter that is of more importance or more directly germane to the vital interests of this country, and of the European Community, than that we should be in a trade war with the United States of America. If that is the case, I should have thought that, above all else, this is an occasion on which we should be seriously considering using that reserve power in the Luxembourg accord.
We are here again discussing a matter of the greatest possible importance for Britain and the European Community at an impossibly late hour. However, I am glad to be able to pay due acknowledgement to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for arranging this debate, following strong representations by the Select Committee on European Legislation, followed up, if I may say so, by personal repersentations not only by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State but by others, including myself, so that we would be in a position to have this debate before the decision was taken in the Council of Ministers. That is crucial and follows from a resolution of the House in 1980.
Nothing could be more dangerous and counterproductive than a trade war with the United States. I recall taking part in a similar debate a few years ago at the time of the "gin war". Only five hon. Members were present for that debate, which, admittedly, took place on a Thursday night when most hon. Members had returned to their constituencies. My hon. Friend the Minister for Trade may recall that occasion because it was a serious incident, which could easily have led to another trade war. It heartens me to see as many as 60 or 70 hon. Members at one time or another taking part in and listening to this debate.
Last week, we discussed the vital second banking directive at a similar hour. In all sanity, we must take a measured look at our sense of priorities and selectively decide to debate such matters as are now before the House in prime time. This debate will almost certainly pass


without notice or comment in the papers or other media, yet it is at the pivot of our economic affairs. That cannot be allowed to continue. I hope that I am right in believing, from all that I have heard, that at last some change in our procedures is imminent—a change made all the more important by the majority voting which is a result of the Single European Act. Especially in the wake of the historic speech at Bruges by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, we must surely reassess our procedures and priorities through the other end of the telescope of Bruges.
Even if there had been no speech at Bruges, we would still need to address ourselves urgently to the prospect of a trade war with the United States. Such a war would be economic suicide and would serve no useful purpose. The issue before us is the trigger on the gun which, as my right hon. Friend the Minister has pointed out, was not of our making. Perhaps at this stage it will affect only about £1·5 million-worth of United Kingdom exports, but that is not the point.
I am aware that the United States' retaliation to this hormone regulation was whipped up by the European Parliament on flimsy, unsubstantiated evidence, which has been targeted primarily at Italy, where the impact of the regulations will affect Italians to the tune of £30 million, and West Germany, where really dangerous hormones are being used by some accounts, to the tune of £15 million.
The issue has been handled by the European Commission, which must bear the primary responsibility for this state of affairs, despite the careful and weighty report of Professor Lamming's group of experts, which described the European Commission's actions and those of the European Parliament as
a case of legislate in haste and repent at leisure".
I do not disagree with their issue of principle, but I do disagree with the notion that it is a case of repent at leisure because. in a nutshell, unless on 20 February the Commission and the Council of Ministers—[Interruption.] We listened to the interminable speech of the hon. Gentleman as he rabbited on about pharmaceutical companies and the rest, so he should have the courtesy to keep quiet for a while.
It should be on the cards that we withdraw this proposal because otherwise the trade war will almost certainly escalate, with an accompanying recession that we shall not merely repent at leisure, but most grievously suffer. We should make no mistake about that.
We have been precipitated into this position without our consent, without our wanting it to happen and despite the attempts of our Ministers in the Council of Ministers up to the present moment. We must sort out this matter as quickly as possible, but if there is no way of shifting the Commission, I ask the Government to exercise the veto because only at that point would we be in a position to protect vital British interests. If it is not possible to exercise the veto—I look to the Minister in this matter of grave urgency—I advise the Government that every conceivable effort should be made to ensure that we negotiate as hard as possible so that other member states realise the serious dangers that we would face if we had a trade war with the United States.

Mr. John Greenway: The seriousness with which Conservative Members and the Government view this matter is evident from the number of hon. Members

on our Benches and the fact ghat there are three Ministers representing three Departments on the Front Bench at this late hour.
That suggests that three issues are involved. The first is our relationship with the European Community. I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) has just said. I do not propose to go over that, except to say that I hypothesise that, if a Minister of this Government came to the House to report that he had taken the decision that the European Commission has taken, there would rightly be utter uproar. If the European Commission cannot be trusted to come to the right decision, we in this House should be given the opportunity to debate some of these matters in prime time, before the decisions are taken. How that is done is clearly for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to decide. However, I note that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Whip is on the Front Bench, and I am sure that he will take note of the comments made.
Secondly, I advise my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade—I understand that he will reply to the debate—that my interest in this is purely on behalf of the businesses in my constituency which are deeply frightened at the thought of a trade war with the United States of America. It is an extremely serious matter. Indeed, nothing more serious has come before the House in my time as Member for Ryedale.
The third issue is food hygiene, which is extremely topical. I strongly believe that, unless we stick to scientific advice as the only basis for imposing a ban on products or procedures, we will get into extreme difficulty. As we have seen in the past few weeks, the media are perfectly capable of whipping up a great deal of hysteria and bringing fear into the hearts and minds of many people, including housewives and the elderly. We can deal with the problem of food hygiene by relying on scientific advice. The concern is that the European Commission did not wait for scientific advice. Now that there is that advice, it still chooses to ignore it.
I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office to encourage the European Commission to reconsider the ban. It needs to be renegotiated. I accept, of course, that it is reasonable to have a ban on hormone products that are unsafe. I am sure that we all wish my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary godspeed and every success in the negotiations this weekend. The only short-term way of avoiding a trade dispute is to reach a negotiated settlement with the United States. I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister of State to convey to my right hon. and learned Friend the good wishes of the House. We await the outcome of the negotiations with great concern.

Mr. Robertson: With leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish to reply on behalf of the Opposition.
There has been a perverse unity on the Government Benches this evening. It seems that if the United States, on whatever flimsy pretext, threatens a trade war with the United Kingdom or the European Community, the view of Conservative Members is that we should automatically back off, back down or give in. In this instance, the United States has little or no case. A decision was taken in Europe


by the European Parliament—it was elected by all the member countries—whether on scientific evidence or on popular preference, to make a decision.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Robertson: No. I shall not give way to a Conservative Member.
A decision has been made by the consumers in Europe, which has been endorsed by the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers, involving 11 of the 12 nation states of the European Community. The great patriots on the Conservative Benches seem to suggest that we should back down.

Mr. Charles Wardle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Robertson: I am making a brief contribution that will enable the Minister to reply. I do not intend to be interrupted by any more of the contrived cacophony from Conservative Members.
The hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) made some perceptive comments in an intervention in a lacklustre speech by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). One of the real reasons for the contrived dispute that we are discussing is the fear of the American drug companies that consumer preference in Europe will spread to the United States, which will lead to an infringement of their profit levels and their markets, in the same way in which the European pharmaceutical companies have been affected.
The hon. Lady makes the valuable point that, at the end of the day, the decision will be made by consumers. If the ban were to be lifted, consumers would still make the choice. Whatever the view of the experts, there is a large lobby in the United States that forced Ronald Reagan to back away from the plans of the Food and Drugs Administration to have similar controls on hormones to those that we are discussing. It tried to head off the European Parliament the European Commission and the Council of Ministers from taking the same course and protecting the European consumers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) was quoted cleverly by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith). My hon. Friend's remarks came from a debate that took place about two years ago, and there was a reference to trying opportunistically to jump on the health bandwagon. If there is a bandwagon worth jumping on at any time in political life, it is the health one. The qualifications which were laid down in that debate stand as validly now as they did then.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Alan Clark): This has been an important debate. That is testified by the remarkably strong attendance in the House at such a late hour. There is a marked difference between the Government and the party of irresponsible dilettantism—the SLD—because not a single member of that party attended or contributed to this extremely important debate.
As my hon. Friends have explained, a number of extremely important and interrelated issues have been raised in the debate. In a characteristically constructive

contribution, my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) asked me particularly to respond about the Government's attitude to the Lamming report. We have voted against that measure twice and we took the matter to the European Court of Justice. There was very little more that we could have done.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) is unrivalled in his detailed knowledge of this topic and the vigilance with which he addresses the behaviour of the Commission. He argued that we should use the Luxembourg compromise, but the Government's judgment was that it should be deployed only in a dispute of major importance. While I appreciate that many hon. Members believe that the matter was of that dimension, the Government decided that it was not of such a dimension as to require the use of the Luxembourg compromise, which is very complex and the outcome of which is not certain. We may be thankful that it was not used in this case. I would digress on that subject if I had more time.
The central theme running through the anxieties expressed today was that of a trade war developing. My hon. Friends have rather overstated that possibility. There is a genuine feeling in the Community and in the United States that such a trade war must be avoided if possible. Clayton Yeutter is an old acquaintance of mine in his former role as the United States trade representative and I know that he is a convinced free-trader. He is well aware of the dangers and is in an important position in the Administration. Other voices in the Administration are also aware of the dangers and, provided that we do not get into a cycle—this is essential—of counter-retaliation and reciprocal counter-retaliation, the problem should be avoided. Such counter-retaliation is the principal danger and the problem about which the House is most anxious.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) has raised this subject before on the Adjournment. He has a deep knowledge of the problem and he made the important point that there is an aggravated danger of a black market in illegal hormones and their misuse developing in the absence of proper regulation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) is always vigilant in scrutinising and drawing our attention to the Commission's excesses. He made a number of telling points and was concerned about the prospects of Community protectionism. I do not believe that the regulation is a symptom of protectionism, although some right hon. and hon. Members may like to think so. The future and the prospects after 1992 should be considered separately from the threat to the GATT system and to the development of the Uruguay round, and the danger of war.

Mr. Aitken: As my hon. Friend progresses, I am having difficulty understanding precisely the Government's policy. So far, my hon. Friend has indicated, in the clearest language, his belief that it will be dangerous for any further steps to be taken towards attack or defence. However, the sixth report of the Select Committee on European Legislation reported:
The Department
meaning the Ministry of Agriculture—
adds that…measures of an equivalent effect are necessary to protect Community interests.


That means that the Government, when they made that submission, believed that a further move towards a trade war was necessary. Is that Government policy, or are we now reversing Government policy?

Mr. Clark: I will deal with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South simultaneously with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith), who suggested that we should try to have the measure in question repealed or withdrawn. That is not practicable, and I hold out no hope that such a thing is feasible.
As to the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South, that the Government wish to encourage or even tacitly support a further round of Community retaliation, I assure him that whatever he may read into the sentence that he quoted, that is not Government policy. We shall continue to encourage the Foreign Affairs Council to delay implementation of any counter-retaliation measures. My hon. Friend will be glad to learn that as a result of bilateral discussions with our partners there are positive signs that every effort will be made to resolve the matter by negotiation and to desist from becoming involved in a retaliatory cycle.
There are serious issues at stake, but I re-emphasise that it is the Americans who challenged the Community's right to ban on a non-discriminatory basis the use of hormones in meat production. That is not illegal in terms of GATT. It is the Americans who resorted to unilateral measures of trade retaliation. The Community rejects those measures which, in the Government's view, are clearly not permissible under GATT. It is vital that matters are looked at in a temperate and rational way, and in the proper forum.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, indicated the three separate headings under which GATT can consider the matter. We must avoid giving the world at large the message that if one country dislikes the trade policy of another country—never mind the scientific evidence—it can resort to unilateral measures forthwith.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4296/89 on tariff concessions and import duties on certain imports from the United States of America; and supports the Government in pressing for a negotiated settlement to the dispute between the Community and the United States of America over the Community's prohibition of imports of hormone treated meat as a means of averting trade disruption and damage to wider Community-United States relations, particularly in the context of the current round of multi-lateral trade negotiations in GATT.

Redberth and Sageston (Bypass)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—Mr. Fallon.]

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I am delighted to have the opportunity, even at 1·39 am, of raising a matter of great importance to a number of my constituents. I wish to press the case for a bypass for the villages of Redberth and Sageston in the county of Pembrokeshire.
I want to start by outlining what has been done so far, and the history of the proposal for the bypass over the past few years. I should like then to examine the need for the bypass and the implications of not building it.
According to one of my correspondents, the history of the bypass goes back some 20 years. I should like at this point to pay tribute to Mrs. Meryl Rogers, who lives in Redberth and who, shortly after I became Member of Parliament for Pembroke, wrote to me about the distressing problem facing the two villages, passing on correspondence in which she had engaged with my predecessor Nicholas Edwards, who of course was also Secretary of State for Wales. I should like to pay tribute to him as well for doing so much to improve the road system in Pembrokeshire during his 17 years as Member of Parliament and his eight years as Secretary of State.
During that period the average time taken to travel from Pembrokeshire to London—according to constituents of mine who have lived there for many years—went from seven hours in the early 1970s to about three and a half at present. On the A477, the road to which I want to direct my attention, we have seen improvements at Kilgetty and the construction of the Stepaside bypass. We should now look at the rest of the A477 to ensure that the increases in economic growth that have taken place in Pembroke Dock and Pembroke and along the A477 are used to advantage, and that the disadvantages that come from increased traffic are mitigated as soon as possible for the residents of the two villages.
As I have said, the history of the proposals for the bypass go back to the early 1970s. Since the Welsh Office has been producing "Roads in Wales", the bypass for Sageston has appeared in almost every edition, and in most editions there is mention of the Redberth bypass. The 1978 edition contains a proposal to start the Sagest on bypass in that year: the cost was estimated at £0·4 million at November 1977 prices, and the bypass was to be 1·5 miles long. That was included, in a firm programme.
The proposals for the Redberth bypass—set out at the back of the edition, with the statement that no start date had been determined—estimated a cost of £500,000. Hon. Members will recall that there was a Labour Government in 1978. In the true tradition of Labour Governments, the proposals in "Roads in Wales 1980" took no account of the country's economic circumstances, and it is not surprising that, given its economic circumstances in 1978, the "firm" proposal to start on the bypass was not implemented.
The 1980 edition of "Roads in Wales" states:
It would be quite unrealistic to suppose that the trunk road programme, which is dependent entirely on public funds, could be insulated from the Government's economic strategy: the programme has had to play its part in the reduction of public spending and, as with all Government spending plans, may be subject to further adjustment if the achievement of the Government's economic objectives requires.


I recognise, as do the Government, that we must look at the road programme in the light of overall economic policy and the amount of money available. I believe, however, that my constituents have waited far too long for this road and that, given the much-improved state of the economy, we are now entitled to see an early start on both bypasses.
"Roads in Wales 1980" went on to describe the strategy for trunk roads as follows:
Resources available will be concentrated on those schemes which offer the greatest benefits, taking into account strategic, economic and environmental factors. The implementation of other schemes must come later. The Government regards improvement of the motorway and trunk road network as an important element in the contribution of public expenditure programmes to the economic development of Wales. Development cannot be guaranteed merely by the provision of new or improved roads, but prospects for development in particular localities are greatly reduced if they do not have good communications providing cheaper and speedier access to raw materials and markets. In formulating the forward trunk road programme for Wales the Secretary of State has accordingly allocated the highest priority to projects which will assist efforts to promote economic activity and the regeneration of areas whose traditional industries are in decline, and thus further the achievements of his regional development objectives. The needs of the tourist industry, which make a substantial contribution to the economy especially in rural areas of the Principality, have also been given full weight.
Bypasses for Redberth and Sageston fulfil all those criteria. "Roads in Wales 1980" refers to schemes such as the A477 Kilgetty bypass and said that they had been included
because they will ease the flow of industrial and commercial traffic and at the same time provide relief for the residents of towns and villages which suffer from severe congestion.
I could not have described the need for those two bypasses better than "Roads in Wales 1980". Unfortunately, in the 1980 programme, the Sageston bypass, which had a firm date in 1978, had been relegated to
a third category of schemes which have been formally added to the pool of schemes in preparation but on which resource constraints are likely to preclude the start of construction work until towards the end of the decade.
That applied to Redberth and Sageston.
By 1983, the Government had added further criteria for new roads. With the introduction of 38-tonne lorries, it was necessary to ensure that roads were capable of carrying such lorries without causing environmental damage. "Roads in Wales 1983" stated that in the south of Wales
the main aim is to improve the A40/A48/A477 routes, serving Haverfordwest, Pembroke Dock and Fishguard.
By 1985, the programme had pushed further back the
bypasses for Redberth and Sageston. The bypass for Redberth has disappeared altogether from "Roads in Wales" and Sageston has become a bypass which will not start until after 1990. On all the grounds which have been set out in "Roads in Wales", whether in 1978, 1980, 1983 or 1985, the two bypasses are vital.
Turning to the accidents which have occurred on the A477 in those two villages, I wrote to the Dyfed county council county engineer and surveyor. He replied, referring to the village of Redberth:
Following concern locally about the number of accidents that had occurred in the village up to 1982 (six during the period January 1979 to December 1981) extra warning signs in the form of 'double bend' signs were provided during 1982, this being in addition to the already existing 'Junction'

warning signs through the village. Continuing concern, however, about the hazards in the village resulted in a 40 mph speed limit being introduced on 18 July 1983. In view of this, it is difficult to see what else can really be done at little cost to further improve the situation at the site.
I recognise that little further can be done at little cost. If action is to be taken to improve the situation for residents in those villages, we require the Government to provide bypasses for Redberth and Sageston.
The accident report in the two villages is really appalling. Since September 1985, there have been 15 accidents, 10 of which have been described by the police as serious. In four separate accidents vehicles overturned and 10 of the accidents involved multiple collisions. Those figures relate to the three years from September 1985 until the end of October 1988. The population of the villages has increased steadily throughout that period. In 1971 the total population for the two villages was 747. By 1981 it had risen to 967. Using the electoral registers and adding 23 per cent. for the population under 18, the population for the two villages is 1,188. The two villages have increased in population by 38 per cent. since 1971.
Traffic volume has also increased. A count was taken on 18 May 1987 and for the ensuing four days. In that five-day period, the estimated daily number of vehicles was 6,800. That is certainly an under-estimate of the present situation, because there have been rapid improvements in the local economy in south Pembrokeshire since then. since 1987 unemployment has fallen by more than 25 per cent., which is bound to have led to a further increase in the amount of traffic going along that road.
On a number of occasions I have met residents from both villages to discuss those problems, both at my constituency surgery and this year with the members of the community and district and county councils, who have expressed concern. I received a petition from the residents who live along the road in Sageston. I shall cite some of the points made by the petitioners. They are making a number of complaints. They say that old people are frightened to cross the road; young people are frightened to ride bicycles or horses near the road; nearly every resident has had a pet killed on the road; mothers are living in fear of young children going near the road; and residents are even frightened to drive their cars out of their own drives on to the main road for fear of being hit by the heavy lorries which now trundle up and down the road.
A local resident wrote to me to say that, since she has moved into Sageston, although the village is well signposted, with a 40 mph limit, she has found that
90 per cent. of vehicles using our road (which is the main road to Carmarthen) do not come even close to 40 mph unless behind a tractor. Huge juggernauts from the B and I Ferry thunder through many not realising the blind bends, that we are situated on … they have to brake suddenly to remain on the road or they tumble into our garden. At 2 am this is very distracting—but thank heavens for double glazing.
Another resident said:
The A.477 is the only viable route from the west to Pembroke and the Dock. There is a steady background of tanker traffic. The Dock is being extensively improved, an increase in ferry traffic is planned, several industrial and enterprise zones have been built, and more are in hand. In the holiday season, for five or six months of the year, tourists and holidaymakers bring a three or fourfold increase in the number of private cars and caravans using the road.
It is worth noting that the traffic survey was carried out in May before the tourist season was really under way. The letter continues:
Since this is also farming country, many tractors and slow moving farm vehicles must necessarily use the road.


Although that slows the traffic at some points, it leads to recklessness by drivers, because, having been delayed for some considerable time along the road, they then attempt to speed up to pass the slow vehicles, and many accidents are caused as a result.
My correspondent, Mrs. Rogers, who originally raised the matter with me, received a letter in April 1987 from my predecessor, Mr. Nicholas Edwards, then Secretary of State for Wales. He wrote about the need for the bypasses in Redberth and Sageston. He said:
Your letter though has come at an opportune time as I am conscious of the need to plan now for a further road improvement programme in the 1990s. As part of such a programme my Department are taking into consideration the many representations that have been made for by-passes for communities such as Redberth and Sageston. In drawing up the programme of road improvements for the 1990s I can assure you that the points you make will be considered.
On my election as a Member of Parliament, on 9 September 1987, I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, but he was not able to add anything further to Mr. Nicholas Edwards's letter.
I wrote again this year to the Secretary of State, and in a letter of 10 February 1989 he said:
By-pass solutions to traffic problems in Redberth and Sageston are being planned, for the longer term. This will be confirmed in the edition of Roads in Wales to be published shortly.
I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend the Minister of State his proposals for those improvements.
I should like to stress why it is so important that we get these bypasses into the programme and implemented as soon as possible. They have been in the programme since 1978. It is important that they are actioned as soon as possible, because the position is getting worse. Because of the boom in Pembroke Dock, which is an enterprise zone, because Govan Davies Developments has its dry dock almost completed, and because of the recent deal between Govan Davies and another entrepreneur, Peter Hancock, for the handling of coal and potatoes and the heavy materials in Pembroke dock, we expect shortly to see an increase in the heavy lorry traffic coming from Pembroke Dock and towards Carmarthen, St. Clears and into London. There has also been the restoration of the B and I ferry, which means that at 2 o'clock in the morning large numbers of lorries from Ireland thunder down the A477, making their way through Wales and, on to England.
Therefore, the two bypasses are vital if we are to improve the economy of south Pembrokeshire and ensure that the environmental conditions for the residents who live in the two villages are improved. They are also vital for an improvement in road safety and to ensure that everybody is able to live safely and benefit from the rapid improvement in the economy that has been brought about by the Government.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Wyn Roberts): My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) has made his concern about Sageston and Redberth very clear—not for the first time. There have been numerous representations to him and by him on behalf of local residents to the Welsh Office over recent years from about 50 of around 350 residents. Individual complaints graphically illustrate their concern about road safety problems, such as the one from Mrs. Meryl Rogers of Redberth, which described an accident she experienced in 1986, when a trailer toppled into her garden while she was

hanging out the washing. Others have spoken about thundering juggernauts, the enormous volume of traffic and speeding traffic, which have exacerbated safety problems and are causing environmental damage.
Carew community council has written supporting those concerns. There have also been two petitions. One was from residents of Sageston, supported by the Dyfed county surveyor and engineer, and presented to him by Mrs. Webb and the other was from Redberth residents submitted by Mrs. Griffiths. South Pembrokeshire district council has also written about the importance of improving the A477 to cater for the growth potential at Pembroke dock. So I am fully aware of my hon. Friend's concern, which he has expressed admirably.
I shall begin by looking at those concerns in an all-Wales context.
As my hon. Friend implied, investment in roads in Wales has been substantial. Since 1979, 47 major trunk road schemes have been completed, involving over 140 miles of road. Expenditure on those schemes, together with expenditure on small schemes, structural renewals of roads and bridges, routine maintenance and on schemes in progress, is more than £1 billion. That is a considerable achievement, which has contributed significantly to economic growth in the Principality. As the House will know, we plan to continue with a high rate of investment into the 1990s.
Our strategy, which will be set out in the forthcoming edition of "Roads in Wales", is to give priority to the completion of work on the A55 in north Wales; to improvement and completion of the M4 in south Wales and to selective improvement of the A483 and A470 routes, to give better north-south access. In that way we shall achieve our underlying aims of providing a network of good quality motorway and trunk roads; assisting economic regeneration, including the development of tourism; bypassing congested towns and villages; and, last but not least, improving road safety.
However, the priority attached to the A55, the M4 and the north-south routes A470 and A483 does not exclude other links in the trunk road network. Indeed, part of the policy for the M4 has been to improve road links into west Wales along the A40 and the A477, on which Sageston and Redberth lie.
Since 1979 more than £23 million has been spent upgrading the western end of the A40. Major schemes completed include the St. Clears bypass, diversions at Pontyfenni and Pengawse, Haverfordwest relief roads and a number of small projects such as those at Black bridge, Pont Loerig and Treffgarne quarries.
The A477 has an interesting history. It was constructed by Thomas Telford to Admiralty specification for a 12-horse wagon carriageway. It has been developed considerably since those times to meet modern traffic demands between St. Clears and Pembroke Dock.
Before 1979 a few small scheme improvements were undertaken, but since then around £20 million has been spent on the A477, including completion of a £14 million bypass scheme for Kilgetty and Stepaside, which my hon. Friend mentioned, and a number of smaller improvements such as those at Castle Heli and at Llanteg.
These improvements on the A40 and the A477 have already made their contribution to increased economic activity in west Wales. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales recently opened the new refrigeration plant at Milford Haven; and as my hon. Friend said,


Govan Davies Ltd is building a new quay and dry dock facility at Pembroke Dock. The company is planning for the opportunities which it perceives 1992 and the Channel tunnel will bring. It would benefit directly from the planned route 9 county link road between the Pembroke Dock enterprise zone and the A477, which the Welsh Office has supported as a project of regional or national importance. All this demonstrates our concern for the needs of west Wales and our desire to bring the area closer to the rest of Britain in terms of travel time.
The A477 has, on current information, capacity to absorb the expected increase in traffic over the next few years. The sub-standard alignment of the road at Sageston and Redberth is not causing traffic flow problems. However, I take a very serious view of the concern of local residents about road safety.
The accident record at Sageston is about the same as the national average. Most accidents occur at the junction between the A477 and the B43I8 to Tenby. The accident record at Redberth is worse. Between 1 January 1985 and 20 September 1988, there were 10 accidents at Sageston and 12 in the vicinity of Redberth. At Sageston half the accidents were slight and half serious; at Redberth nine were serious and three slight. There have been no fatalities, I am glad to say.
Checks conducted independently by the police authority and the Welsh Office do not support the view that speeding traffic is a severe problem. Average speeds are close to the 40 mph speed limits—but of course it only takes one motorist to drive too fast and exceed the limit for lives to be put at risk. So I have every sympathy with the residents who complain and I fully understand their anxieties.
Poor visibility and road alignment are a problem, particularly at Redberth. At Sageston, junction improvements and the provision of footpaths are being considered. It is not possible to improve the road at Redberth because of the proximity of properties on each side of the road, particularly at the bends. The case for providing street lighting is being considered.
The idea of providing bypasses for both villages has been around for some considerable time as my hon. Friend suggested. Preparation of bypass schemes began following the trunking of the A477 in 1968. A draft order covering the line of the bypasses was published in 1973, and a draft

side roads order for a Sageston bypass was published as long ago as 1976. The intention at that time was that the remaining road section between the villages would be improved on the existing alignment; but there were objections. In any event, new orders are needed because our proposals need to conform to current road design standards.
The very low economic benefits of these schemes—both COBA-negative—combined with the greater need for road improvements elsewhere in Wales, has meant that preparation of the schemes has not progressed. However, I recognise that the only real solution to the problems is to bypass both villages. The earlier proposals have been revived.
A bypass for Sageston was included in the programme in "Roads in Wales 1985" as a longer term scheme. The forthcoming edition of "Roads in Wales" will confirm this position and will add a Redberth bypass to the programme for the long term. This reflects the fact that, even when a scheme is included in the programme, it seldom takes less than six years to reach the start of construction.
A number of factors affect progress—public reaction to the proposals, engineering considerations, the statutory procedures and the speed of land acquisition. Because of their current state of development, these schemes have to be regarded as longer term, but as soon as suitable lines for the bypasses have been defined we will announce our intentions. I hope that it will be possible to do this within a year or so and that this will provide all concerned with greater certainty for the future.
But I should also underline that these schemes will be in competition for resources with other planned improvements, including a number in west Wales. These include improvements to the A477 between Llanddowror and Red Roses; the Whitland, Robeston-Wathen and Haverfordwest eastern bypasses on the A40; and an improvement at Treffgarne Rocks also on the A40. These schemes will together cost over £10 million at today's prices.
I conclude by assuring my hon. Friend that we have plans to build bypasses for Redberth and Sageston in the longer term; that this should cater for the traffic demands expected to be generated in west Wales; and that we are actively looking at ways of alleviating the road safety problems in the short term.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at six minutes after Two o'clock.